The insurance company's defence of rash and negligent driving is not available in claims filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for no-fault liability.

1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment cum award dated 4.12.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in M.A.C. Case No. 118/2010, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,72,500/- was awarded to the respondent No. 1 claimant and the appellant Insurance Company was held responsible to make payment of the award.

2. Facts in brief are that the deceased Dayaram was proceeding from his Village Puccasarana to Hanumangarh on the motorcycle belonging to Shri Amilal the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant Insurance Company. He collided with a milestone fixed on the side of the road and received fatal injuries in the accident. The respondent claimant filed a claim application before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company appeared in the proceedings and filed a written-statement stating that the deceased was not having a licence to drive a motorcycle at the time of the accident and thus, the claim be rejected. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration.

"(1) vk;k nbZ;k mQZ n;kjke us fnukad 18-10-2009 dks nksigj 2-00 cts guqekux<+ xaxkuxj jksM+] utnhd xq:ukud uxj eksM+ ij eksVjlkbZdy uEcj vkjts&31&,lhlh&6915 vLFkkbZ jft0 ua0 vkjts&13@VSEi0@,l,Dl 2209 dks pykrs gq, vfu;af=r gksdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ] ftlls mDr okgu ds pkyd nbZ;k mQZ n;kjke ds vkbZ xaHkhj pksVksa ds QyLo:i mldh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ\

(2) vk;k e`rd nbZ;k mQZ n;kjke foi{kh la[;k 1 bZehyky dh fu;kstu esa dk;Zjr gksrs gq, mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk\

(3) vk;k foi{kh la[;k 2 chek dEiuh vius fyf[kr dFku dh izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds en~nsutj vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS\

(4) vk;k nkosnkj vius nkosa esa vafdr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;lEer jkf'k izkIr dj ldrk gSA ;fn gka rks fdruh&fdruh jkf'k] fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls izkIr dj ldrs gSa\

(5) vuqrks"kA"

3. The Insurance Company took a plea before the Tribunal that even in cases, where the claim was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act then too, the Insurance Company was entitled to take a plea of rash and negligent driving by the victim and to oppose the claim on that ground. The Tribunal held that the concept of no fault liability under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was enacted in order to benefit the poor people, who became victims of the accident. It was held that the provisions of the Act entitling the Insurance Company to raise defences for opposing the claim were not available in such claim applications filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the claim application was allowed and the claimant was held entitled to compensation as indicated above.

4. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of this appeal challenging the impugned award.

5. Shri Jagdish Vyas learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha and Ors. reported in 2012(1) ACJ Page 1 and urged that even in claims filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the defence of the Insurance Company founded under the no fault liability principle has to be adjudicated and cannot be discarded outright.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant.

7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Vyas learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Shri Korpal for the respondents and have gone through the impugned judgment.

8. The appellant's Counsel has based his challenge to the impugned award on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sinitha's case (supra). This Court had the occasion to examine a similar controversy in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Radha and Ors. in C.M.A. No. 1480/2013 decided on 5.3.2014 . In that case, this Court noticed the fact that the earlier decision re