Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2527 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11247 of 2018)
Decided On : 08-06-2020
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A - 13, 14, 15 - The court discussed the liability under Section 163A, the requirement of proving negligence, and the relevance of driving license in a compensation claim. The court emphasized that the claimant need not establish negligence or default of the vehicle owner and that the driving license aspect, though given up by the insurance company, was incorrectly utilized by the High Court to disentitle the claimant to relief.
Fact of the Case:
An incident resulted in the death of the claimant's son in a road accident. The MACT held the insurance company liable to pay compensation, but the High Court set aside the judgment based on the claimant not being an eyewitness and the absence of evidence regarding the deceased's valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant need not prove negligence under Section 163A and that the driving license aspect, though given up by the insurance company, was incorrectly utilized by the High Court to disentitle the claimant to relief. The court corrected the multiplier and allowed the appeal, directing the insurance company to pay the amount due to the claimant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability under Section 163A, the claimant's status as an eyewitness, and the validity of the deceased's driving license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Section 163A, the claimant need not establish negligence or default of the vehicle owner. The driving license aspect, though given up by the insurance company, was incorrectly utilized by the High Court to disentitle the claimant to relief.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the amount due to the claimant as per the court's judgment within a period of three months.
Key Points: - The claimant need not establish negligence or default under Section 163A; driving license evidence, though raised earlier, cannot disentitle relief (!) (!) (!) . - The driving license aspect, though given up by the insurer, was incorrectly used by the High Court to deny relief; driving license status is not a requisite condition for liability under Section 163A (!) . - The court corrected the multiplier from 8 to 17 and directed payment by the insurer within three months, clarifying the calculation of compensation under Section 163A for death of a 28-year-old with specified income and funeral/other expenses (!) (!) . - The MACT’s liability framework under Section 163A is "no fault" liability and fixes compensation as per the Second Schedule, without proving negligence (!) (!) . - The High Court’s reliance on the eyewitness status of the claimant and absence of the deceased’s driving license was overturned; the claimant’s status as an eyewitness is not required for Section 163A claims (!) (!) . - The insurer’s argument that maximum liability was Rs. 1 lakh was not allowed to be raised at this stage; not pressed in lower courts (!) . - The judgment reiterates that the claimant need not plead or establish that death resulted from wrongful act or neglect by the vehicle owner or others; liability is under the statute’s no-fault framework (!) . - Final decision: appeal allowed; insurance company to pay as per judgment within three months; multiplier corrected to 17 (!) .
JUDGMENT
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. On 18.03.2004, an incident took place, by which the son of the claimant, who allegedly was a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’) after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, who was the owner of the motor vehicle and who was driving the aforesaid motor vehicle. The victim was aged 28 years. Coming to the conclusion that a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month would be adequate, with a deduction of one-third, and taking the multiplier as 8 dependant upon the claimant’s age, the MACT finally held the insurance company liable to pay a total of Rs. 1.99 lakhs + 6 percent interest thereon.
3. In the appeal filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand, by the impugned order dated 28.12.2016, the High Court held that since the insurance company denied that the deceased was only a pillion rider and stated that he was, in fact, driving the vehicle himself; also since the claimant was not present at the spot; and since Shri Virender Bijalwan, respondent No. 2, who ought to have been called as he was the only surviving eye witness, not being called as a witness, therefore, proved fatal to the claim, as a result of which, the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would have to be dismissed. Further, the High Court also held that nothing was brought on record to show that the deceased was having a valid driving license. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the judgment passed by the MACT was set aside.
4. Shri N. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the petition being filed under Section 163A, it is clear that the liability is ‘no fault’, as a result of which, it is not necessary to prove the negligence or any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. He further argued that the multiplier of 8 is ex-facie incorrect since it was taken on the basis of the claimant’s age and not the victim’s age, stating that since the victim was only 28 years old, the multiplier should have been 17. He also argued that the High Court was wrong in placing the burden on the claimant, when MACT has held that, based on the examination and cross examination of the claimant, the facts could be elicited. Further, the validity of the driving licence under Issues Nos. 2 and 3, was given up by the insurance company but taken into account by the High Court.
5. Shri Anshum Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, reiterated the High Court’s judgment and further argued that no fault liability under Section 163A is limited to Rs.1 lakh. At the relevant time, therefore, even if we were to uphold the MACT’s judgment, the maximum that can be awarded on the facts of this case is Rs.1 lakh.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we may only extract the order of the MACT as follows:
“13. P.W. 1 Smt. Chandra Kanta Tiwari was cross- examined at length on behalf of O.P. No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company and none appeared to cross-examine her on behalf of the O.P. No. 1. Whatever cross- examination has been made on behalf of O.P. No. 2, it has again been proved that the deceased was the pillion rider and O.P. No. 1 was driving the ill- fated vehicle at the time of accident in a rash and negligent manner due to which he received grievous injuries which resulted into his death on the spot.
14. It will be relevant to mention here that no controverting evidence on this issue or on issue no. 2 has been adduced by any of the opposite parties though they have made the pleadings otherwise in their written statement hence it has not been proved on record by any of the opposite parties that at the time of the accident, the deceased was driving the vehicle, it is also relevant to mention here that according to written statement of O.P. No. 1, he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
