Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Section 163A of the Act was enacted and introduced the principle of no fault liability in cases of motor accidents. It is a social security provision under which compensation is required to be paid, on the basis of calculation or a formula prescribed in the IInd Schedule to the Act. Distinction between Section 140, 163A and 166 of the Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Limited . It was held that Section 163A is based upon the concept of no fault liability and does away with the requirement to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving. Section 163A of the Act provides for a pre-determined structured formula for payment of compensation to the victims of road accident or the legal heirs of persons who die in a road accident. The formula is based upon the income of the deceased or the person suffering permanent disability and applying a multiplier on the basis of the age and the extent of disability. This provision was enacted as there has been an increase in number of road accidents in India and in some cases it is difficult to prove and establish that rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle has caused death or injury. More ever, it curtails the length of trial and prevent delay. The claimants recover the amount without fighting a lengthy legal battle.

5. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that Section 163A is applicable where annual income of the deceased or victim does not exceed Rs. 40,000/- per annum and payment of compensation under Section 163A of the Act is in full and final settlement.

6. Distinction between claims under Section 166 and Section 163A of the Act is that the former applies to cases where compensation is claimed on the basis of fault liability and no maximum limit has been prescribed for the compensation payable. In such cases negligence has to be established. Section 163A prescribes a maximum limit and a pre-determined formula for calculation of compensation on the basis of no fault liability. Section 163A is for grant of compensation where annual income of the deceased or victim does not exceed Rs. 40,000/- per annum. A claimant may have option to either go under Section 163A or Section 166 but he cannot be paid compensation under both the provisions or pursue his remedy simultaneously under both the provisions. Thus, Section 163A is a social security provision and would apply even in cases where there is negligence on the part of the victim. Section 163A begins with non-obstante clause and use the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being enforced or any instrument having the force of law". Requirements and satisfaction of conditions of other Sections of the Act may not be mandatory to make a claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need to prove negligence.

8. I also do not think that the concept of apportionment applies to Section 163 A of the Act. As already stated above, the said Section begins with a non-obstante clause and in clear terms states that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disability as per the IInd Schedule. Section 163A is based upon the principle of no fault liability. Another object of Section 163A of the Act is to ensure expeditious determination of cases of claims under the structured scheme without pursuing the claim through normal channel and undergoing a long drawn out legal procedure. The object of IInd Schedule and Section 163A of the Act is to avoid delays and a tedious complicated litigation requiring pleadings and detailed evidence to prove and establish wrongful act, neglect or default on part of a third person. If we bring in the concept of proportionately or apportionment to proceedings under Section 163A of the Act, we will compel the claimants to leave evidence and also prove negligence and comparative faults of the drivers of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. This question of comparative fault will become a relevant and contentious issue determination of which will have to be made in every case after recording lengthy evidence. Such interpretation will be contrary to the concept, object and purpose behind Section 163A of the Act and the language used in the said Section. Compensation under Section 163A of the Act is to be awarded without proof of any fault and without leading evidence to prove wrongful act, negligence or fault of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. In case Courts or Tribunal are required to apportion the respective faults of the drivers involved in the accident, it will have to adjudicate, decide and go into these questions, which are required to be determined as in a normal case under Section 166 of the Act.

10. In view of the findings given above, the erroneous and wrong facts stated in the impugned award that the appellant insurance company was the insurer of the two wheeler scooter is inconsequential and not material. The liability of the insurance company under Section 163A of the Act cannot be denied and it is liable to make payment of the compensation.

11. I also find that the learned Tribunal has calculated the total income of the deceased at Rs. 35,376/- per annum which is less than Rs. 40,000/- as mentioned in the IInd Schedule. There is also no dispute that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of his death and, therefore, as per the IInd Schedule, the multiplier applicable is 15 or 16. However, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Learned Tribunal has also noticed that the deceased had left behind the widow and three minor sons. I do not think that learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 15 as while awarding compensation claimed under Section 163A of the Act, IInd Schedule has been followed. In view of above, I uphold the compensation awarded to respondents 4 to 7.