The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimant can obtain compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without proving fault, even if the victim's own wrongful act, neglect, or default caused the accident.

This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has arisen out of the award, dated 12.05.2004, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Aizawl, in MAC Case No. 34/2002, directing the present insurer-appellant to pay Rs. 3,12,0007- as compensation to the claimant-respondent within one month from the date of the award failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum would accrue on the awarded amount until full payment is made.

2. The material facts, which have led to the present appeal, may be set out as follows:

The Claimant-respondent No. 1 instituted the MAC Case No. 34/2003 aforementioned under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained, his case being, in brief, this: The claimant, aged about 40 years, was, at the relevant point of time, employed as a driver by the respondent No. 2 herein to drive his taxi bearing registration No. MZ 01 -A-5590 and used to receive Rs. 2,500/- as salary per month. On 24.07.2000, when the claimant was driving the said vehicle, another vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. MZ 01-A-9497, came from the opposite direction and collided against the said taxi at Tuipui. The said accident caused injuries 6n the person of the claimant and the claimant remained hospitalized therefore at Civil Hospital, Champhai, with effect from 24.07.2000 till 28.07.2000. Even after his discharge from the hospital, he has remained under treatment, for, the injuries sustained by him have caused 80% permanent disability.

3. As the registered owner of the said Sumo did not contest the claim proceeding, the present appellant, as insurer of the Sumo, on obtaining permission under Section 170 of the MV Act, 1988, resisted the claim on all such grounds, which were available to the -owner of the Sumo, the case of the insurer-appellant being, briefly stated, that the inquiry report submitted by the police indicated that the said collision between the two vehicles aforementioned had taken place due to fault of the drivers of both the said vehicles and, hence, when the claimant himself was at fault, he could not have made a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988.

4. Confronted with the above written statement, the claimant made a prayer for converting the proceeding from Section 166 to one under Section 163 A of the MV Act, 1988. As this prayer was not objected to by the insurer-appellant, the learned Tribunal, vide its order, dated 24.10.2002, allowed the prayer of conversion. The claim application was, thereafter, treated as an application under Section 163 A of the MV Act, 1988.

5. In support of his claim, the claimant adduced evidence by examining one witness. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim application as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the claimant-respondent No. 1.

7. It has been submitted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant, that the claim application made under Section 166 of the MV Act could not have been legally converted into an application under Section 163 A. At any rate, contends Mr. Malhotra, the claimant being himself at fault, he was not entitled to any compensation even under Section 163 A. Lastly, it is contended by Mr. Malhotra that the claimant remained in the hospital only for four days and the evidence adduced by the claimant was grossly inadequate to show that he had suffered from 80% disablement and/or that he is entitled to the quantum of compensation, which the learned Tribunal has, eventually, granted.

8. Let us, first, consider the question as to whether a person, whose own wrongful act, negligence or default, causes an accident or forms the cause of an accident, can maintain an application under Section 163 A. While considering this question, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the sou