Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act Section 163A cannot be denied due to claimant's negligence, aligning with Apex Court precedents to expedite justice.

ORDER :

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, A.C.J.

These matters have been placed before us on an order of reference dated 30.07.2009 by a Full Bench referring following questions for consideration:

“1. Whether injured person/claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even if it is shown that the accident was on account of the negligence of the injured person/victim?

2. If the injured person/victim is the owner himself, whether the said owner is entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?”

2. The first question has been answered by the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar and Another [2017 KHC 5644] and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others [2008 KHC 4640] . The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) in Paragraph 8 and 9 held as follows :

-

“8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under S.163 -A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicles(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by S.163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the insurerbased on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by S.140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and/or to 10 understand the provisions of S.163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of S.163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand S.163A of the act to permit the insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under S.163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under S.166 of the Act which would not only self – contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under S.163A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim”

3. In Shivaji and Another v. Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others [2018 (4) KHC 506] the provision under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for compensation to the victim/applicant/claimant in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and therefore, statutory provision itself contemplates that compensation shall be based on structured formula in the nature of final award without any requirement to prove the negligence of tortfeaser. Tort law as modified by statutory provisions do not mandate proof of the negligence of the wrong doer to claim compensation. Tort law modified by statutory provision is in larger social context to ensure that speedy measures are made to ensure payment of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased as referred in Section 163A .

-

4. In the light of the Apex Court judgment, we have no difÏculty to answer the first question to hold that in a proceedings under Section 163 A the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.

5. In regard to second question, we also find Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others [2008 KHC 4640] and Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009 KHC 5046] and Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another [2020 KHC 6008] the Apex Court held that the proceedings under 163A cannot be maintained by an owner himself to make compen