SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. RAM PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 24206-CII of 2012

(2.) It is true that the accident as required under section 163A of the Act need not be proved to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. A case of an accident is covered by section 163A of the Act if the same has occurred on account of use of a vehicle. However, this is not the only difference between the above mentioned two provisions.

(3.) Section 163A of the Act covers cases where the accident had occurred due to use of the vehicle. Compensation in a petition brought under section 163A of the Act has to be assessed as per the structured formula. However, it is clear from the language employed in section 163A of the Act that it covers only the cases of death and permanent disablement. No third category of cases is covered by this provision. It is not in dispute in the case in hand that the claimant appellant did not suffer any permanent disablement on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. So in the absence of any permanent disablement the claimant cannot seek compensation under section 163A of the Act for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.