Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhu Lal vs Babulal And Anr. on 24 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)ACC686
Author: S.K. Seth
Bench: S.K. Seth
JUDGMENT S.K. Seth, J.
1. This appeal by the claimant arises out of the award dated 28th November, 2005-passed by the IInd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 162/2003. By the impugned award, claim for compensation preferred by the appellant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) was rejected.
2. Briefly stated, relevant facts found by the Tribunal are as under:
Appellant claimed that he was employed as driver with respondent No. 1, owner of truck bearing registration No. M.P.-09-D-1041. On 30th September, 2003 appellant was bringing the loaded truck to Indore and he was waylaid and assaulted by unknown armed miscreants. Miscreants not only robbed Rs. 1,500 but also caused injuries to appellant, consequently appellant is unable to work as driver any longer. Appellant, therefore, lodged claim under Section 163A of the Act, for compensation against respondents jointly and severally, they being owner and insurer of the truck on the fateful (sic. day).
3. Claim was contested by the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, denying all material allegations including employment, accident, and injuries. It also denied that appellant had a valid driving licence. It further repudiated the liability to pay compensation.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal, appreciating material and evidence, found that appellant was not entitled to compensation and rejected the claim petition.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for appellant on the question of admission at length and perused material available on record. Learned Counsel for appellant basically urged only contention that claim petition being under Section 166A, of the Act, Tribunal committed illegality in rejecting the claim petition. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. . According to him, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, appellant is entitled to compensation on the principle of no-fault liability for the injuries arising out of use of motor vehicle, viz. truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09-D-1041.
6. Section 163A was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 14th November, 1994. It provides special provisions for compensation on Structured Formula basis. A conjoint reading of provision of the Section 163A with other Sections of Act reveals that it is open for a victim or legal representatives of a victim of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle to proceed for compensation based upon the principle of no-fault liability. In other words, Section 163A provides for payment of compensation on Structured Formula in an accident resulting into death or permanent disablement without the proof of negligence. Section 163A of the Act starts with the language that gives an overriding effect to it over any other law for the time being in force. Moment a claimant comes forward with a prayer under Section 163A then he can succeed if ii could be shown that prima facie death or permanent disability complained of was the result of the accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle. This is ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi's case (supra). In that case an auto rickshaw was hired by passengers for use as a public carrier and later on slain body of auto rickshaw driver was discovered. Considering the viability of claim petition under Section 163A of the Act in the proximity of cause of such murder, their Lordships after considering various authorities, held that a death (murder) of an auto rickshaw driver during the course of employment was an accident and covered by the Section 163A of the Act for payment of compensation without proof of negligence on the part of deceased driver. There is no argument with the proposition of law laid down by Their Lordships in the aforesaid decision, however, with the due respect, said proposition, in the opinion of this Court, is inapplicable to the facts of the appeal in hand. Appellant chose Section 163A to claim compensation. There is not a shred of evidence that appellant suffered any injury resulting in permanent disablement or physical impairment. It is clear that appellant/claimant could not prove that he sustained any permanent disability on account of the alleged incident which took place on 30th September, 2003. Section 163A provides for compensation on no-fault liability for death or permanent disability. In absence of the proof that appellant sustained any permanent disability in the alleged accident, appellant is not entitled to claim compensation. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal so as to warrant interference with the impugned award. Consequently appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed summarily.