The main legal point established is that claimants in motor accident claim cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act must prove negligence, and if they find it difficult to do so, they have the option to seek compensation under the structured formula of no-fault liability under Section 163A of the Act.

1. The first to third respondents (the claimants) had instituted accident claim case in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR), registered as Suit No.81/2014 (New MACT Case No.476669/16) seeking compensation on account of death of Dharamvir Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 29.12.2012 allegedly due to negligent driving of tempo bearing no.HR-46B-2307 (tempo), the said vehicle being insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance company. The insurer contested. The Tribunal awarded compensation by judgment dated 14.10.2016 returning findings of negligent driving of the tempo to be the cause of accident, this in spite of the fact that no evidence to such effect was adduced, the Tribunal having chosen to follow view taken in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.

2. The insurance company assails the view taken by the Tribunal contending that in absence of proof of negligence, a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 could not have been upheld.

3. Similar issue had arisen before this court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP.165/2013, decided on 29.02.2016. The court took the following view :-

“5. It is well settled that in proceedings arising out of a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act based on fault liability principle, a person cannot be held liable unless he contravenes any of the duties imposed on him by the common law or by the statute. In the case of a motor accident it is imperative that the claimants show by some evidence that the driver of the motor vehicle had been negligent in relation to the said vehicle and thereby had caused an accident resulting in bodily injuries or death or damage to the property so as to be held liable as the principal tort-feasor. The owner’s liability arises out of his failure to discharge a duty cast on him by the law, on the principle of vicarious liability. Proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company may be held liable for payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case brought under Section 166 MV Act.

6. The law to above effect declared in Minu B Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchanra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 was reiterated by Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428. It appears there was some confusion raised with regard to these principles on account of view taken in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (1987) 3 SCC 234. In Meena Variyal (supra) the Supreme Court clarified as under :

“On a careful understanding of the decision in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) we cannot understand it as having held that in all claims under the Act proof of negligence as the basis of a claim is jettisoned by the scheme of the Act. In the context of Sections 166 and 163A of the Act of 1988, we are persuaded to think that the so called obiter observations in Minu B. Mehta's case (supra) govern a claim under Section 166 of the Act and they are inapplicable only when a claim is made under Section 163A of the Act. Obviously, it is for the claimant to choose under which provision he should approach the Tribunal and if he chooses to approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, we cannot see why the principle stated in Minu B. Mehta's case should not apply to him. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the observations in Minu B. Mehta's case deserve to be ignored.”

7. In Pushpa Rana (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court holding the case of the claimant as duly proved on the basis of the certified copies of the record of the corresponding criminal case, while dealing with identical contention took note of the judgment in Meena Variyal (supra) but proceeded to observe thus:

“13. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the