In a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, proof of negligence is not required; the mere involvement of the vehicle is sufficient for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment dated 1^st August, 2022 of the Member, Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Northern Division), Sambalpur, in M.A.C.No.64 of 2018 (Sambalpur), wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- has been granted along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident on 28^th January, 2018.

2. Heard Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurer-Appellant and Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. The claim application was filed under Section 163 -A of the M.V.Act. As per the findings of the Tribunal, motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-BC-8078 was used in the accident and accordingly its owner as well as the Insurer were held liable to pay the compensation amount.

4. The Insurer-Appellant challenges fixation of liability on him mainly on the ground that the offending motorcycle baring registration no.TN-02-BC-8078 is not negligent for the cause of accident and as per the F.I.R. as well as police report, motorcycle bearing registration no.TN-02-BC-414 was negligent for the cause of accident.

5. It is well settled that in a claim preferred under Section 163 -A of the M.V.Act, the proof of negligence is immaterial. To maintain the claim under -A of the M.V.Act, the use of vehicle or involvement of the vehicle in the accident is enough. The Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and another , 2018 (1) T.A.C. 3 (SC) have observed as follows:-

“8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 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 vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of A 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 A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be 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 Section 163A of the Act, it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.”

6. In the case at hand, involvement of offending motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-BC-8078 remains undisputed. Respondent No.5 is the admitted owner of the said motorcycle and the Appellant is the admitted Insurer in respect of the said vehicle with valid Insurance Policy on the date of accident. Therefore, no flaw can be noticed in the finding and conclusion of the Tribunal, which is confirmed by this Court.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant-Insurer is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before t