ORDER

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta and others [(2011) 10 SCC 509], this matter will have to be referred to a larger Bench, especially with regard to points no.(iii) to (v) referred to in the above- mentioned judgment, which are in conflict with the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi [(2002) 7 SCC 456]. The impugned order, we notice, is based on the principle laid down in Nicolletta Rohtagi’s case (supra), the correctness of which is doubted in Shila Datta’s case (supra). In the present case, the claim petition was filed by the Respondent under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 20.11.2006. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 16.8.2011 passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court placing reliance on the judgment in Nicolletta Rohtagi’s case (supra) dismissed the appeal since the Insurance Company failed to comply with Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company has come up with this appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the question whether permission is required or not under Section 170 stands referred to a larger Bench.

3. We have yet another issue to be examined. As already indicated that in the instant case, claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the same is not maintainable since the injured himself was driving the vehicle and that no disability certificate was produced. A Two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and others [(2012) 2 SCC 356] examined the scope of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and took the view that Section 163-A of the Act has been founded under “fault liability principle”. Referring to another judgment of a co-equal Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala [(2001) 5 SCC 175], the learned Judges took the view that while determining whether Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is governed by the fault or the no-fault liability principle, Sections 140(3) and (4) are relevant. The Bench noticed under Section 140(3), the burden of pleading and establishing whether or not wrongful act, neglect or default was committed by the person (for or on whose behalf) compensation is claimed under Section 140, would not rest on the shoulders of the claimant. The Court also noticed that Section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act further reveals that a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Act cannot be defeated because of any of the fault grounds (wrongful act, neglect or default).

4. The Division Bench in Sinitha’s case (supra), then took the view that under Section 140 of the Act so also under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not essential for a claimant seeking compensation to plead or establish that the accident out of which the claim arises suffers from wrongful act or neglect or default of the offending vehicle. The Bench then expressed the view that the legislature designedly included the negative clause through Section 140(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, but consciously omitted the same in the scheme of Section 163-A of the Act intentionally and purposefully. The Court also concluded, on a conjoint reading of Sections 140 and 163-A, the legislative intent is clear, namely, that a claim for compensation raised under Section 163-A of the Act need not be based on pleadings or proof at the hands of the c