Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 9th October, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, in MACP no.602 of 2006. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has dismissed NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, holding that the deceased himself, being a tortfeasor, was not entitled to claim compensation for his own wrong, in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of original claimant.

4. Mr. Raj A. Jadeja, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned advocate on record for the appellant, and has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the Tribunal committed serious error in dismissing the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. It was submitted that while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was the driver and not the owner of the auto- rickshaw. However, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sinitha and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 356, observed that it shall be open for the Tribunal to consider the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, on 'the fault' ground. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has misconstrued the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinitha (supra). 4.1 The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that initially the claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined Act, 1988, was entertained by the Tribunal by passing judgment and award dated 19th December, 2009, holding the opponents viz. the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- to the claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the insurance company had preferred an appeal which was registered as First Appeal no.1279 of 2010 before this Court, which came to be decided vide order dated 7 th March, 2012. While issuing appropriate directions of remand, the Hon'ble High Court had considered the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly in para 6 in the case of Sinitha (supra), and had directed the Tribunal to decide it afresh.

8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid point for determination, it would be appropriate to note at the outset that admittedly the claim petition was preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the original claimants who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driving the auto-rickshaw, which is the vehicle involved in the accident. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased has succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained during the course of driving of the insured vehicle, which is admittedly insured with respondent no.2 - insurance NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined company. Having noted the aforesaid admitted facts, it would be appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:

9. It is equally settled legal position that for a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or object that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought was due to wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. However, the basic requirement to fix liability of insurance company to pay compensation still remained to be established. In order to establish the liability of the insurance company in terms of the contract of the insurance, the deceased has to be a 'third party' in order to entertain a claim under Section 163A of the Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions including in the case of Ningamma (supra) and New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417.