Compensation claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act do not require proof of rashness or negligence, focusing instead on vehicle involvement, thereby modifying liability and enhancing awarded sums.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

2. MFA No.24897/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened on it. Whereas, MFA Nos.100278/2014 and 100279/2014 are filed by the claimants challenging the contributory negligence to an extent of 50% saddled on the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-2822 as well as seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. All these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 30.09.2013, passed in MVC Nos.775/2011, 776/2011 and 777/2011, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

4. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

5. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 08.11.2010, the deceased-Chandrakant (for short, the ‘deceased’) was travelling along with two other pillion riders from Nipani towards Gajabarwadi on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-2822 as a rider. When they reached near Ramchandra Goswal’s land, dashed the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-4605 and caused the accident in question. Due to which, the rider- Chandrakant died on the spot and other two pillion riders sustained grievous injuries.

6. The legal heirs of deceased-Chandrakant and other two claimants/injured preferred claim petitions under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act, 1988’), seeking compensation. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand as jointly and severally to pay compensation amount to the extent of 50% together with interest in each case and on the other hand has fastened balance 50% of compensation amount on respondent No.3 together with interest in each case.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Therefore, the driver of tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-4605 is not at all responsible for occurrence of accident. Hence, prays for exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation to the claimants.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants/injured submitted that the claim petitions are filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988. Therefore, there is no need to plead and prove rashness and negligence of the vehicles involved in the accident. If involvement of vehicles is proved that is sufficient for holding for grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988. Therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in fastening 50% of contributory negligence on the part of owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.MH- 10/T-2822.

9. Admittedly, the claim petitions are filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988. When the claim petitions are filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988, then rashness and negligence of vehicles need not be pleaded and proved. Mere involvement of vehicles is necessary in maintaining the petitions filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.

10. In the present case, the Tribunal has committed error in fastening contributory negligence on the part of deceased, who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-2822. Since the claim petitions are filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988 and police records state that the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/TA- 4605 is also involved in the accident. Therefore, th