Bombay High Court
Smt. Nita Wd/O Niles Gedam And 2 Others vs Shamrao S/O Gopal Zarekar 5 Others on 8 May, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:7209
1 FA279.2013.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2015
1. Smt. Nita wd/o. Nilesh Gedam,
Aged about 22 years Occ. Household work,
C/o. Namdeo Shankar Sidam,
R/o. Umred, Po. Pimplapur,
Tq. Ralegaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Mrs. Suman w/o. Abhiman Gedam,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household work,
(Mother of deceased Nilesh S/o. Abhiman Gedam)
3. Abhiman S/o. Balaji Gedam,
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Labourer,
(Father of the deceased Nilesh S/o. Abhiman Gedam)
Both No. 2 and 3 R/o. Po. Wadki, Tq. Ralegaon,
Dist. Yavatmal. ...Appellants
- Versus -
1. Shamrao S/o. Gopal Zarekar,
Age Major, Occ. Truck No. MH-31/M-2593,
Driver, driving the Truck at the time of accident,
R/o. Sarodipura, Near Power House, Ward No. 4,
Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
[Driver of Truck No. MH-31/CR-2593 involved in the accident]
2. Mrs. Maya w/o. Ganpat Batkhal,
Aged Major, Occ. Business,
Present owner of Truck No. MH-31/M-2593
on the date and at the time of accident,
R/o. Ambedkar Chowk,
At Po. Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
[Present owner of the Truck No.
MH-31/CR-2593 involved in the accident.]
3. Ayubbeg S/o. Yusufbeg,
Aged Major, C/o. G. N. Badkhal, Ambedkar Chowk,
Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
(Past owner as per Insurance Policy
transferred on 04.04.2015 to Maya G. Batkhal).
2 FA279.2013.odt
(Past owner and insured of Truck No. MH-31/M-2593
involved in the accident.)
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch at Yavatmal, through its Branch Manager,
Branch office at Mahajanwadi Square, Near Punjab National Bank,
Yavatmal, Tq. Dist. Yavatmal,
NRO Code No. 230302/31/04/02/00005794.
Valid from 23.03.05 to 22.03.2006 (Insurer of the
Truck No. MH-31/M-2593 at the time of accident.)
5. Dilip s/o. Rambhau Futane, Major,
R/o. Daroda Tq. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha,
owner till 16.10.2005 and transferred to
Nilesh s/o. Abhiman Gedam the deceased owner and
driver on 17.10.2005.
6. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch at Dr. Bangde Bhavan, Main Road,
Wardha, through Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Division Office at "Kanchan", Near Satish Motors,
Badnera Road, Amravati, Tq. Dist. Amravati.
Policy No. 230303/31/05/00350 Valid from 16.04.05 to
15.04.2005 (Insurer of Bajaj Tempo Trax No.
MH-32/A-0911 at the time of accident.)
... Respondents
-----------------
Adv. Bharat Dharnidhar Vora for the Appellants
Adv. D. B. Chatterjee for Respondent Nos. 4 and 6
----------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 09.04.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 08.05.2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'M.V. Act'), filed by the claimants against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Member, 3 FA279.2013.odt Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the M.A.C.P. No. 90 of 2007 [in short 'Claim Petition'] filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
2. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition contending that, on 22.12.2005, the deceased, Nilesh Abhiman Gedam, husband of Appellant No. 1 and son of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, was driving a Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MH-32/A-0911 on the Wani- Warora Road. When the vehicle reached near Shiva Mandir on the Wani-Shirpur bypass, the deceased lost control over the vehicle and dashed against a stationary Truck bearing registration No. MH-31/M-2593, which was negligently parked on the road. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them. He was 25 years old and was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month. Compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- was claimed.
3. The owner of the Truck filed the written statement denying the claim, contending that, the deceased was himself negligent and did not possess a driving licence. He further stated that, there was no negligence on the part of the Truck driver. The Truck driver was holding a valid driving licence, and the Truck was insured with Respondent No.4-the Insurance Company.
4. Respondent Nos. 4 and 6, the insurance companies with which the Truck and the Bajaj Tempo Trax respectively were insured, 4 FA279.2013.odt filed their written statements denying the claim. They denied that, the Truck was stationary. They further contended that, the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence. It was also contended that, the Truck did not have a valid permit and that there was a breach of policy conditions in respect of both vehicles.
5. The learned Tribunal framed the issues. The Appellants led evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the claim petition.
6. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants and the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 - the Insurance Companies. Perused the paper-book.
7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore the Appellants were not required to prove negligence. The provision under which the claim petition was filed does not provide for apportionment of liability. Once involvement of a motor vehicle in the accident is established, the claim petition is liable to be allowed. All necessary parties were impleaded as respondents in the claim petition. As regards the insurance company of the Truck, the deceased was a third party, and his rights remain protected. There was no evidence to show that, the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence. Though the policy was transferred in the 5 FA279.2013.odt name of the subsequent purchaser, the interest of the third party remains protected. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following decisions:
[i] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Katikala Indira and others, 2014 ACJ 1720 [ii] The New India Assurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Walcut Compound, Amravati Versus Smt. Gayatri Nitin Lutade and others [First Appeal No. 32/2011, decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Nagpur on 19.12.2025].
[iii] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sunil Kumar & Anr., 2017 (13) Scale 652 [iv] G. Govindan Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 1982, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 8.4.1999.
[v] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Ratheesh, M.A.C.A. No.2414 of 2008 and connected cases, decided by the Kerala High Court on 16.11.2011.
[vi] National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Gracy and others, 2014 ACJ 2235 [Kerala High Court] [vii] Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Bhaidas Patil & Ors., 2014(1) ALL MR 145 [Bombay High Court] [viii] Riyana Ishaque Kazi and others V. Pushpa R. Sheva and another, 2015 ACJ 2539 [Bombay High Court]
8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 that, the deceased was the owner of the Bajaj Tempo Trax, which dashed against the Truck. Both vehicles i.e. the Bajaj Tempo Trax and the Truck, were insured with the respondent Insurance Companies, which are the same Insurance Companies. The deceased was not holding a valid driving licence. No premium for personal accident cover 6 FA279.2013.odt was paid by the policyholder. No additional premium to cover third-party risk was paid by the insured. Respondent No. 2 had sold the vehicle to the deceased. No-fault liability compensation was not pressed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and dismissed the claim petition. No interference is called for. Alternatively, it is submitted that the case involves contributory negligence. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:
[i] Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 [ii] Ramkhiladi and another Versus United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 [iii] Manjuben Alias Manjulaben Shantilal Garasia & Ors. Versus Sirajbhai Imamuddin Luhar & Anr., 2026 LawSuit(Guj) 477.
9. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues and recorded the findings against the same, which are as follows:
Issues Findings
1. Whether Nilesh Abhiman Gedam died in the accident on 22.12.2005 at about 6.30 p.m. on Wani-Shirpur road, due to negligent driving by N.A. No.1 of Truck No. ....No. MH-31/M-2593?
2. Whether there is breach of policy condition of truck No. ...No, but there is MH-31/M-2593? breach of policy of Tempo trax MH-32/A-0911.
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to received ...No compensation? If yes, how much?
4. What is the liability of each of the respondents? Does not arise.
5. What order & Award? Petition is dismissed.
10. In Katikala (supra), the deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo vehicle which met with an accident when it hit a stationary lorry from behind. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Claim
7 FA279.2013.odt Petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. The learned Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition by holding the Respondent jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company challenged the same contending that the policy executed between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was an Act policy of a private car and insurance company did not receive premium covering the risk of the deceased, who was an inmate of Tata Sumo vehicle, and thus the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was further contended that, it was an Act policy and the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the insurance company. It was the contention of the claimants that considering the provision under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, once the accident occurs arising out of the motor vehicle, if the said vehicle is covered by an insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and it was not necessary for the claimants to prove as to whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the judgments cited by the parties therein, it was observed that no error was committed by the learned Tribunal in holding the Insurance Company also liable to pay compensation, as once it is proved that the accident occurred on account of the use of a motor vehicle, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation, and the usual defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are not available as the claim was under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
8 FA279.2013.odt
11. In Smt. Gayatri Lutade (supra), the proceedings arose under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of compensation due to the death of the deceased, who was driving his own scooter. The appeal was disposed of by the Court holding that under Section 163-A, the claimants were not required to prove negligence, as the provision is based on the principle of no-fault liability.
12. In Sunil Kumar (supra), it is observed that, the question of liability for consideration was "whether in a Claim Proceeding under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, it is open for the insurer to raise the defence / plea of negligence". It is observed therein in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 as under: -
"8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to 9 FA279.2013.odt raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
13. In G. Govindan (supra), the question for consideration was "whether the Insurance Policy lapses and consequently the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under section 103A of the Act was made/given." Considering the judgments of various High Courts, the view taken by the Full Bench in Madineni Kondaiah & Ors. etc. v. Yaseen Fatima & Ors. etc., AIR (1986) A.P. 62, that, the interest of the third party remains protected even if the vehicle is sold and no intimation regarding transfer of the insurance policy is given, is approved.
14. In Ratheesh (supra), the question was "when plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident, does the victim/claimant have the unfettered option/right to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either or both the owners/insurers of the vehicles? It is observed that, notwithstanding the different semantics employed by the legislature in Secs. 140 and 163A of the M.V. Act, in a Claim under Section 163A of the M.V. Act also, the Claimant has the 10 FA279.2013.odt unfettered option/choice to stake his claim against either or both (any or all) the owners/insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident.
15. In Gracy (supra), considering the earlier decisions, it is observed that "in the present case, two vehicles are involved in the accident. The deceased was a third party as regards the other vehicle is concerned. In view of the principles laid down in the above mentioned three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court, we are of the view that the claims Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation u/s 163A of the Act to the petitioners in the Original Petition even though negligence was on the part of the deceased."
16. In Satish Patil (supra), it is observed that, compensation to third party victim under Section 163A of the M.V. Act enables claimants to receive compensation even in absence of pleading and proof regarding wrongful act or neglect or default on the part of owner of vehicle or any other person and even if victim is at fault.
17. In Riyana Ishaque Kazi (supra), Section 163A is based on no fault liability and defence of 'fault' is not available to the owner/insurance company against the claimant.
18. In Ningamma (supra), the question that fell for consideration was, whether the legal representatives of a person, who 11 FA279.2013.odt was driving a motor vehicle, after borrowing it from the real owner meets with an accident without involving any other vehicle, would be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of MVA or under any other provision(s) of law and also whether the insurer who issued the insurance policy would be bound to indemnify the deceased or his legal representative. Considering the earlier decisions, it was observed that, a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim and, therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163A of the MV Act. The accident in the said case occurred as the deceased was going on the motorcycle which dashed the bullock cart and it was observed that, since the deceased borrowed the motorcycle from its real owner, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the motorcycle owner.
19. In Ramkhiladi (supra), the question for consideration was, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in a case where the driver, owner and the insurance company of another vehicle involved in an accident and whose driver was negligent are not joined as parties to the claim petition, meaning thereby that no claim petition is filed against them and the claim petition is filed only against the owner and the insurance company of another vehicle which was driven by the deceased himself and the deceased being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle driven by himself, whether the insurance company of the 12 FA279.2013.odt vehicle driven by the deceased himself would be liable to pay the compensation under Section 163A of the Act?; Whether the deceased not being a third party to the vehicle being in the shoes of the owner can maintain the claim under Section 163A of the Act from the owner of the said vehicle? It is observed that, as the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle the Claim Petition under Section 163A ofthe M.V. Act was not maintainable. It is further observed that, though the Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is based on the principle "no-fault liability", the deceased has to be a third party.
20. In Manjuben Alias Manjulaben (supra), the claim petition was initially filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and subsequently, the same petition was converted into an application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The issues for consideration were;
[i] Whether the driver of the insured vehicle can be said to be a third party, whose risk is required to be compulsorily covered for the purpose of maintaining the Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988?
[ii] Alternatively, whether the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in view of the additional premium paid towards the coverage of the owner and driver of the insured vehicle?
13 FA279.2013.odt [iii] Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988, was not maintainable in the facts of the case and the evidence on record?
20.1. In the said case, the deceased was given dash by the motor vehicle and he succumbed to the injuries. The issue of third party/any person came to be considered. The contention of the learned Advocate for the Original Claimants to treat the driver of the insured vehicle as a third party for the purpose of applying mandate to the owner of the vehicle to secure cover of the third-party risk and liability of the insurance company towards third party was held to be misconceived and was rejected.
21. The above-referred judgments show the following settled legal position:
[A] In a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement, in respect of which the claim is made, was due to an unlawful act, negligence, or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any person.
[B] The claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act is not maintainable by the borrower / permissive user of the vehicle against the owner and/or insurer of the vehicle, as such borrower/permissive user steps into the shoes of the owner. Therefore, the owner cannot be both the 14 FA279.2013.odt claimant and the recipient of compensation in such cases.
[C] If the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in such a case, the owner cannot himself be the recipient of compensation in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, as the liability to pay the same is on him. [D] In a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the option to stake a claim lies entirely with the claimant. The claimant can choose to claim compensation against either the owner or the insurer, or both, depending on the circumstances of the accident.
22. Coming to the case at hand, it is undisputed that the deceased was the owner of the Tempo Trax, which he was driving at the time of the accident. The Respondent No. 6 was the Insurance Company of the said Tempo Trax, which was purchased and owned by the deceased. There is nothing to show that, the insurance policy of the Tempo Trax covered personal accident risk, and therefore, the deceased, being the owner of the said Tempo Trax, would not be entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company of the said Tempo Trax. It is undisputed that, the accident occurred involving the Truck, which was owned by Respondent No. 2 after being purchased from Respondent No.
3. There is no dispute that the said Truck was insured with Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company. In view of the legal position in G. Govindan (supra), though there is no evidence that the intimation of sale of Truck was given by Respondent No. 3 while transferring the Truck in the 15 FA279.2013.odt name of Respondent No. 2, the deceased being the third party for the Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company of the Truck, the liability towards the third party would remain unaffected. Further, the provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 speaks of deemed transfer of the insurance policy upon sale of the motor vehicle in respect of which the insurance was issued in accordance with the provisions of law. Undisputedly, no evidence was led by any of the respondents. The deceased was not holding a driving licence at the time of the accident; however, the claimants cannot be denied compensation on that ground alone, as the deceased was a third party as regards the Truck and its Insurance Company. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition by the impugned judgment and order.
23. As the compensation in a claim petition under Section 163A is based on the structured formula as per Schedule I of the M.V. Act, the question would be in respect of the quantum of compensation. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, which has now been deleted and Section 164 of the M.V. Act has been amended. The retrospective applicability of the provisions of the amended Section 164 of the M.V. Act has been considered in Smt. Gayatri Nitin Lutade (supra). The amended provision of Section 164 of the M.V. Act provides for compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh in case of death. The provisions of Section 171 of the M.V. Act provide for the award of simple interest. The accident is of the year 2005. The interest rates of nationalised banks 16 FA279.2013.odt keep fluctuating. In the light of the above discussion and the legal principles, the following order is passed:
ORDER [i] The appeal is allowed.
[ii] The impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in M.A.C.P. No. 90 of 2007 is quashed and set aside.
[iii] The Appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition No. 90 of 2007 i.e. 03.04.2007, jointly and severally from Respondent No. 2 - Owner and Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company of the Truck.
[iv] Respondent No. 2-Owner and Respondent No.4-Insurance Company of her Truck shall deposit the amount of compensation along with interest accrued thereon with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal, within a period of eight (8) weeks.
[v] The amount of compensation shall be apportioned as follows:
[a] Appellant No. 1 - Smt. Nita Nilesh Gedam, wife of the deceased, shall be awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) with interest accrued thereon.
[b] Appellant No. 2 - Smt. Suman Abhiman Gedam,
mother of the deceased, shall be awarded
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with interest accrued thereon.
17 FA279.2013.odt [c] Appellant No. 3 - Shri Abhiman Balaji Gedam, father of the deceased, shall be awarded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with interest accrued thereon.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/05/2026 16:26:36