Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Valsamma Chacko – Appellant
Versus
M. A. Titto – Respondent
Conclusion of the Judgment:
The Court grants leave and notes the facts and prior proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . It expresses difficulty with the position that claimants who fail under Section 166 cannot convert to a claim under Section 163A, given the beneficial, no-fault nature of Section 163A with its non-obstante clause (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . However, bound by prior precedent, the Court refers the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of another three-Judge Bench for reconsideration in the interests of justice (!) . No final decision is rendered on the claims.
Retrospectivity:
The judgment does not determine or apply any retrospective effect, as it makes no substantive ruling and instead refers the interpretative issue for reconsideration. Section 163A (applicable to the 2000 accident) was in force at the relevant time but was later repealed effective 01.04.2022 (!) . The referral leaves the issue open without prospective or retrospective delineation (!) .
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The appellants before this Court are the claimants in five motor accident claim cases arising out of one accident.
3. The brief facts of the case are that one Chacko George was travelling with his wife and two minor children in a car on 19.08.2000, which was driven by their driver, when they met with an accident, in which the father (Chacko George), one of the minor children and the driver were killed. The mother, her surviving child and her inlaws thereafter filed five claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”). The finding of the Tribunal was that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car in which they were travelling and consequently, their claim petitions were dismissed.
4. The matter was taken up in first appeal before the High Court, where the High Court opined that since the claim was made under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act (in short, “the Act”) and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver; the vehicle being covered by an ‘Act only’ policy the claim for gratuitous passengers against the insurer cannot be sustained. The owner of the car was the deceased
Death in motor accident – If fault liability is found to be non-existent in a particular claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, Tribunal ought to provide opportunity to claimants to exercise o....
The judgment establishes the independence of proceedings under Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that a claimant cannot pursue remedies under both sections simultan....
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence cannot be considered; claimants are entitled to compensation without proof of fault.
Compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act must adhere strictly to the Second Schedule, excluding Future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise defenses of negligence against the claimants.
Compensation under S.140 is distinct from S.163-A; claimants can invoke either provision, but not both.
While the accident itself gives cause of action for relaxation of compensation under Section 163A-The cause of action for sustaining a claim under Section 166 is not merely the accident, but a tortio....
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
