Negligence is not relevant for determining a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the protection under this provision is extended only to the injured person or the legal heirs of the deceased victim, not to the driver responsible for causing the accident.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18/2/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,58,300/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 18/12/2014.

2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants wife, children and parents of one Jagdish under Section 163A of the Act with the averments that on 26/6/2014 Jagdish was driving the trailer bearing registration No. RJ-19-GB-7542 on express highway from Nadiyal to Baroda; at about 2.30 pm when he reached Fatehpur village, another vehicle, which was being driven ahead of his trailer suddenly applied brakes, Jagdish tried to save it, however the vehicles collided and the trailer turned turtle. Jagdish received grievous injuries and died on 28/6/2014. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.4,65,834/- was claimed.

3. Reply was filed by the Insurance Company indicating that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by deceased Jagdish, which is indicated in the final report produced by the Police. He was not in possession of valid driving license and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of compensation.

4. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and nine documents were exhibited. No evidence was led by the non-claimants.

5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Jagdish died on account of injuries suffered by him due to use of motor vehicle and for determination of a claim under Section 163A of the Act, negligence is not relevant and consequently awarded the compensation, as noticed hereinbefore.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation inasmuch as under Section 163A of the Act, claim can only be filed when the deceased/injured (victim) is third party, however, in the present case the deceased was driving the trailer as driver and was a tortfeasor, as such he was not entitled to any compensation and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.

8. The issue sought to be raised by the appellant Insurance Company has no substance as the issue already stands covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) AIR SC 3705, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr., (2017) AIR SC 5710 inter alia laid down as under:

"4. The insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The appellants also filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court, by its impugned judgment, allowed the insurer's appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court opined that the idea behind enacting Section 163A to ensure that even in the absence of any mistake on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the injured person or the legal heirs of the deceased person are compensated by the owner and the insurer. As a result, under this provision, since the victim has been contemplated to be an innocent third party, protection is extended only to the injured person or to the legal heirs of the deceased victim, and not to the driver who is responsible for causing the said accident. Since the deceased driver in this case was the tortfeasor and responsible for causing the accident, the High Court held that compensation could not have been awarded to the appellants.

5. The issue which arises before us is no longer res integra and is covered by a recen