Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company [2020 (1) KHC SN 13 : (2020) 2 SCC 550].

9. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with special provisions as to compensation on structured formula basis. The said provision was inserted vide Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, with effect from 14.11.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 163A states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any law for the time being in force, or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs of the victim, as the case may be. As per the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 163A, for the purposes of sub-section (1), 'permanent disability' shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Sub-section (2) of Section 163A provides that, in any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-section (3) of Section 163A provides further that, the Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, amend the Second Schedule.

32. In Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710] the Apex Court, after referring to Para.42 of the Three-Judge Bench decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni held that, the Parliament by introducing Section 163A in the Motor Vehicles Act provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163A of the Act. After referring to the judgment of a Two-Judge Bench in Rajni Devi the Apex Court held further that, Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to the claim. A person who borrowed motor vehicle from its real owner, who was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, would step into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle. Accordingly, the legal representatives [sic: legal heirs] of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act.

35. The scope of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the object behind the said provision introduced by Act 54 of 1994 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Appaji v. M. Krishna [2004 ACJ 1289]. The Division Bench rendered the said judgment on 17.12.2003 (prior to the Three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni dated 18.03.2004) after examining in detail the provisions of Section 163A of the Act as well as the objects and reasons which led to the introduction of such a provision in the Act, by Act 54 of 1994. In the said case, the Division Bench was dealing with a case were the deceased Arun Kumar was riding a motorcycle and the accident occurred while the deceased was trying to avoid a cyclist who suddenly emerged on the road, i.e., without involving any other motor vehicle. The Division Bench held that, Section 163A of the Act was never intended to provide relief to those who suffered in a road accident not because of the negligence of another person making use of a motor vehicle, but only on account of their own rash, negligent or imprudent act resulting in death or personal injury to them. The objects and reasons underlying the introduction of the provision also envisaged adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into what was described as long drawn procedure. There is nothing to suggest that Section 163A of the Act was intended to be available even in a situation where the accident in question had caused death or physical injury to none except the person who was rash and negligent in using the motor vehicle. The Division Bench held further that, the right to receive compensation under Section 163A of the Act presupposes that the person who makes a claim is a victim or the legal heirs of a victim. One who is the victim of his own actions of rash or negligent driving cannot invoke Section 163A for making a claim. The concern of the Legislature and the jurists is understandably for the victim in contradistinction to the victimiser or one who falls a victim to his own action. The Parliament did not intend to provide for compensation to the person responsible for the accident on structured formula basis in such cases. The Division Bench held in categorical terms that, the 'non obstante' clause in Section 163A simply dispenses with proof of fault by the claimants against the driver or the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The claimant under Section 163A, therefore, need not prove that the driver or the owner of the vehicle was at fault in the sense that the accident had occurred on account of any negligence or rashness on their part. That does not, however, mean that claimant can maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless made the insurance company pay for the same, inasmuch as, Section 163A of the Act dispenses with proof of fault, it does so only where the claimant is not solely responsible for the accident. The view expressed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Appaji is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ningamma.

48. In Ningamma [(2009) 13 SCC 710], after referring to the judgment in Rajni Devi [(2008) 5 SCC 736], the Apex Court held that, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to the claim. A person who borrowed motor vehicle from its real owner, who was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, would step into the shoes of the owner of that vehicle. Therefore, the legal representatives [sic: legal heirs] of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act.