Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 ii. Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 2 SCC

550.

"5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 iii. Smt.Sangeetha W/o. late Subramani and others vs. Sri.Krishna Chari S/o. Puttachari and another in MFA No.5537/2011 c/w MFA No.3182/2011 and 1658/2012.

"35. To sum up, in the opinion of this Court, a claim petition seeking payment of compensation in a road accident, by the owner of the vehicle or by any other person driving the vehicle and not being an employee, is not maintainable under Section 163A or Section 166 of the M.V.Act, before MACT. This position holds good even where the vehicle is insured for own damages and premium is paid to cover the risk of "owner-cum-driver" under comprehensive policy or contract policy. The basis for maintaining a petition, both under Sections 163A and 166 of the M.V.Act is provided under Section 147 of the M.V.Act. The difference between Sections 163A and 166 is, the need to prove negligence under Section 166 and non-requirement of proving negligence under Section 163A. The other difference is unlimited liability on the Insurer under Section 166 and payment of compensation on structured formula basis as indicated in the Second schedule of M.V.Act in case of a claim made under Section 163A. The only exception in Section 163A is that a claim petition could be maintained by an employee (or his legal heirs) being a driver/rider
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 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 163 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 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."

15. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163A of the Act on the basis of the structure 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 involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable. So the Corporation and Insurance Company are held liable to pay 50% each of the compensation.