Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Valsamma Chacko & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M.A. Titto & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27621 of 2019]
Decided on : 13-02-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A--Multiple deaths and Injuries suffered in motor accident – No-fault liability – Claim application dismissed on the ground that accident occurred due to negligence of driver and vehicle being covered by ‘Act only’ policy, claim for gratuitous passengers against Insurer cannot be sustained – Fault liability if found to be non-existent in a particular claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, Tribunal ought to provide opportunity to claimants to exercise option to convert claim to one under Section 163A of Act – Owner and Insurer of other vehicle involved in accident were party-respondents in claim petition and ‘no-fault liability’ could be imposed on Insurer of other vehicle as a third-party claim – However, in interest of justice, matter requires re-consideration by another three-Judge Bench – Matter referred to Chief Justice of India for constituting a three-Judge Bench for re-consideration of issue. (Paras 4, 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
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 driver were killed.
Findings of Court:
Finding that if accident occurred due to the fault of one’s own driver, but even in such a case, claimants would be prohibited from moving an application under Section 163A of Act; if they had unsuccessfully moved an application under Section 166 of the Act, is a difficult proposition in law to be accepted; especially given the beneficial nature of provision which is also one incorporated, notwithstanding the other provisions of the Act or any other law in force.
Result : Matter referred to three-Judge Bench.
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 husband and hence, the rejection of the claim petition was upheld. At that stage, a plea was made by the Counsel for the claimants that their claims may be treated under Section 163A of the Act; especially since the insurer and the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident were parties in the claim petition. This plea was declined by the High Court, as it stands covered by the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385, wherein it has been held that, where no case is made out for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the claimants cannot take the liberty of, then moving a claim under Section 163A of the Act.
5. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (Supra) is reproduced as under:
60. The answer to both the aforementioned questions must be rendered in the negative. In other words, the question of adjustment or refund will invariably arise in the event if it is held that the amount of compensation paid in the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act is interim in nature.”
6. Section 163A of the Act was inserted in the Act via an amendment in the year 1994. It is a beneficial legislation as it awards compensation to the claimants on a ‘nofault liability’ basis. Section 163A of the Act reads as under:
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
