IMPORTANT POINT
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise defenses of negligence against the claimants.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.11.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case No.219/2022 (CIS No.219/2022) whereby the claim petition as preferred under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was allowed and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum had been awarded in favour of the claimants.

2. At this stage itself, it is relevant to note that although the claim petition was preferred by the claimants in terms of Section 163-A of the Act (as it then existed), the learned Tribunal proceeded on to decide the same in terms of the amended provision of Section 164 of the Act on the premise that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2019’) had come into effect from 01.09.2019 and hence, the present appeal would be governed by the amended provision.

3. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was driven by deceased Prem Singh who was found to be negligent in the police investigation but because of his death, a final report was filed.

4. Mr.Vishal Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised the following grounds :

(i) The present claim petition could not have been decided by the learned Tribunal in terms of Section 164 of the Act as the said provision was substituted vide amendment which came into effect from 1st April 2022 only. The present claim petition pertaining to an accident of June, 2021 could not have been governed by the said provision.

(ii) So far as Section 163-A of the Act is concerned, it pre-supposes a ‘victim’ whereas in the present matter, the deceased himself was the tortfeasor and could not have been termed to be a ‘victim’. Further, the deceased was not a third party qua the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore also, the claimants could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act.

(iii) The deceased, in the present matter, stepped into the shoes of the owner and hence, no claim against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle could have been made by the claimants.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts :

(i) Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; 2020 (7) SCC 386

(ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi; 2008(3) RLW (Raj.) 2285

(iii) Narayana Rao Vs. Nagaraj; 2019(6) KarLJ 358

(iv) Sangeetha Vs. Krishna Chari; 2020 ACJ 61

(v) Ayyappan Pillai Vs. Thomas M.; 2020(3) KHC 313

(vi) First Appeal No.771/2009; The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Wasudeo Mukaji Sambhalkar & Ors. (decided on 08.02.2023) by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court

(vii) The Divisional Manager, TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs. A.C.Jagadeesann & Anr.; 2023 ACJ 122

(viii) First Appeal No.78/2012; The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Kaushallyabai & Ors. (decided on 21.02.2024) by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents claimants while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Shivaji & Anr. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance & Ors.; (2019) 12 SCC 395 submitted that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.

So far as the decision of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal under Section 164 of the Act is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same would even otherwise make no difference as the intent of both the provisions remains the same and even the compensation as payable in terms of both the provisions, in the case of death, remains the same.

7. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

8. So far as the issue whether the insurer can be permitted to raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim is concerned, the same no more remains res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the reference on