Compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted without strict proof of negligence, and the involvement of the vehicle in the accident must be established to determine compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 24th of March, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 5th Court Burdwan, in MAC Case No. 42 of 2012.

2. The present appellant being the claimants have preferred an application u/s 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act before the Learned Tribunal for getting compensation on the ground that their predecessor was died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured new policy of the Insurance Company. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement.

3. After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidences the Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim case.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, of the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the deceased was a Khalasi of a Bus bearing No. WB 41 B 3126. While he was in the same bus on 11.07.2021 he failed down from the bus due to high speed and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. After such accident the victim sustained severe injuries and he admitted to the hospital thereafter succumbed to his injuries. To substantiate the case the widow of the deceased deposed as PW 1. The driver of the offending bus as deposed as PW 2 other two witnesses stated that the deceased died in RTA. But the Learned Tribunal has not considered the evidences on record and is of opinion that the claimant could not proved the accident. He further argued the observation of the Learned Tribunal is erroneous. He argued that by virtue of several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court the strict prove of the accident is not required to be proved in a proceeding u/s 163A of MV Act. The rule of evidence to prove charge in criminal trial cannot be used while deciding the application u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. [Janabhai Vs M/s ICICI LOM BARD 2000 SAR (Civil) 865.]

5. He also placed the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

1. Anita Sharma and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2011 SAR (Civil),

2. Shibaji and Ors Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2018.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar 2018 (1) TAC 3(SC)

6. By showing those citations the Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that it is the object of Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act to grant compensation on the basis of structure formula, without any requirements of proof of negligence on the part of driver/ owner of vehicle involved. “To permit the insurer to raise defence of negligence would be bring proceeding u/s 163A of barred with proceeding u/s 166, which would defeat legislative intention”.

7. On the above argument he submits the claimants are entitled to just and proper compensation and the impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is required to be set aside.

8. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The fact of the case goes to show that the PW 2, who is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle, was not authorised by the owner (OPW 1) to drive the vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle has deposed before the Learned Tribunal as (OPW1) and the investigator of the Insurance Company as deposed as OPW 2. OPW 1 in his deposition specifically stated that he never authorised the PW 2 (Hiru Dey) to drive the vehicle.

9. He again argued that during the cross-examination of PW 2 he ascertained that after such accident police was informed and the owner of the vehicle was also informed; the offending bus was taken to the Police Station from the Tinkonia Bus Stand and the same day, it was seized. The submission of PW 2 cannot be believed on the ground that the alleged accident was happened on 11.07.2012 but the FIR was lodged on 17.07.2012 by the widow of the deceased. The po