ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. D. N. Kukday, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. A. R. Wagh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.

2. By this appeal, the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 10-82005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 114/2004 partly allowing the application filed by the respondents under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,29,500/inclusive of no fault liability with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition.

3. In nutshell, the facts which are relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows :-

The respondents are the legal representatives of Ramesh Dhumone who died in the vehicular accident which occurred on 1-12-2003. On that day at about 19.15 hours the deceased was returning on his motorcycle with his brother Ganesh. The deceased could not see the road properly on account of dazzling of headlight of oncoming vehicles. Therefore, the motorcycle driven by the deceased slipped and deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Wardha and from there he was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram where he succumbed to injuries on 5-12-2003.

4. The claimants filed the above referred claim petition under section 163-A of the Act against the appellant only as the motorcycle which was belonging to deceased was insured with the appellant. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence led by the claimants, granted compensation as stated above.

S. Mr. Kukday, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the petition claiming compensation under section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable inasmuch as the deceased himself was responsible for the said accident and as such the claim petition was not maintainable. He further submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation even in respect of the claim under section 163-A of the Act inasmuch as deceased was not a third party and as such was not covered by the insurance policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle. He then urged that the claim of legal representatives of the owner of the vehicle who dies in the accident is not maintainable under section 163-A of the Act in case the owner dies in the accident in which no other vehicle is involved as has happened in the present case. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Appaji vs. M. Krishna, 2005 (II) ACC 591 and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Darshan Kaur, 2001 (1) ACC 681.

6. Per contra, Mr. Wagh appearing for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment having regard to the evidence led by the claimants. He then urged that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation even in respect of application under section 163-A of the Act considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel. I have perused the records as well as judgments relied upon by Mr. Kukday.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the findings given by the Tribunal, the following point arises for consideration in the present appeal :-

"Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?"

9. Indisputably, in the present case the application has been filed under section 163-A of the Act which provides grant of compensation on the basis of a structured formula. Under section 163-A of the Act, it is not necessary for the claimant to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document