Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 833
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R. Vijay – Appellant
Versus
Shabeena Begum & Another – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 963 of 2015
Decided on : 29-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :T.G. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:D. Baskaran, Advocate
The main legal point established is that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant is relieved from proving negligence on the part of the offending vehicle but must prove age, income, and disability to claim compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 163A, Section 140 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by an accident victim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the dismissal of his claim petition. The victim alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the opposite vehicle driver and sought compensation under Section 163A r/w Section 140 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's claim for compensation under Section 163A was challenged by the insurance company on the grounds of the victim being the tort-feasor and not proving permanent disability. The court remanded the case for fresh appraisal of evidence, including assessment of disability by a medical board.
Issues: The main issue was whether the victim, being alleged as the cause of the accident, was entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Section 163A relieves the claimant from proving negligence on the part of the offending vehicle but is silent about the claimant's own negligence and self-inflicted injuries. The court emphasized the need for the victim to prove age, income, and disability to claim compensation under Section 163A.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous dismissal and remanded the case for a fresh trial, including assessment of the victim's disability by a medical board.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.5667/2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 23rd December 2014.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the accident victim aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition.
2. The point for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner being the cause for the accident and the tort-feasor is not entitled for any compensation under any of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is legally sustainable?
3. The averments in the claim petition filed under Section 163 A r/w Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is that the claimant R.Vijay on 28.10.2012 at 13.00 hours while proceeding in his motorcycle bearing TN-02-AR-7107 at Perambur Barrack Road, Opposite to Otteri Police Station Quarters, Chennai from south to north, a motorcycle Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.TN-05-P-1776 driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction came on the wrong side and hit the claimant vehicle and caused him grievous injury. The petition though filed under Section 163(A) r/w 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fall liability, a specific allegation has been made against the other vehicle driver of his rash and negligent driving as the cause for the accident.
4. In the said circumstances, the Insurance Company has filed a counter stating that the claimant is the tort-feasor. He in fact rashly and negligently jumped the medium and dashed against the opposite vehicle causing injury to three persons. First Information Report was registered against the claimant and he has been prosecuted for rash and negligent driving. While so, he being a tort-feasor cannot take advantage of his own fault and claim compensation.
5. Specifically it was contended in the counter of the insurance company that the claimant at the most is entitled for Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act if he could prove permanent injury. Having alleged rash and negligent driving against the opposite vehicle, the benefit of Section 163A is not available to the claimant.
6. The trial Court, having considered the evidence let in by the claimant and the insurance company, dismissed the claim petition observing that the claimant has hit a static vehicle and caused injury to himself and three others. He being a tort-feasor, he is not entitled for any compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the claim petition is made under Section 163A r/w 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and being an Auto driver the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month, which is less than Rs.40,000/- per annum and having sustained permanent disability of 30% he is eligible for getting compensation under the structured formula contemplated under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is inserted in the statute to prevent beggary, ameliorate the suffering of victims in motor accident.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the First Information Report as well as the claim made by the other injured victims implicate the claimant as the offender. The fact that the claimant is the offender is proved and accepted by the Court. While so, Section 140 and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not indicate that the motor accident victim is entitled for compensation under the structured formula, even if he is found to be a violator and offender. Further, having made specific allegation against the other vehicle driver, the claimant has forfeited his right to claim compensation under no fault liability.
9. Pointing out the averment made in the claim petition alleging rash and negligence aga
