Back
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, B.R.GAVAI
CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
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
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
