Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for compensation on a no-fault liability basis for death or permanent disability resulting from a motor vehicle accident, and the claimant must prove the permanent disability to be entitled to compensation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by claimant arises out of the award dated 28. 11. 2005 passed by the Second Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Indore in the M. V. Case no. 162 of 2003. By the impugned award, claim for compensation preferred by the appellant under section 163-A of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) was rejected.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, relevant facts found by the Tribunal are as under: appellant claimed that he was employed as driver with respondent No. 1, owner of truck bearing registration No. MP 09-D 1041. On 30. 9. 2003 appellant was bringing the loaded truck to Indore and he was waylaid and assaulted by unknown armed miscreants. Miscreants not only robbed rs. 1,500 but also caused injuries to the appellant, consequently the appellant is unable to work as driver any longer. The appellant, therefore, lodged a claim under section 163-A of the Act for compensation against respondents jointly and severally, they being owner and insurer of the truck on the fateful day.

( 3 ) CLAIM was contested by the insurance company, respondent No. 2, denying all material allegations including employment, accident and injuries. It also denied that appellant had a valid driving licence. It further repudiated the liability to pay compensation.

( 4 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal, appreciating the material and evidence, found that appellant was not entitled to compensation and rejected the claim petition.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission at length and perused material available on record. The learned counsel for appellant basically urged only contention that claim petition being under section 163-A of the act, Tribunal committed illegality in rejecting the claim petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 801 (SC ). According to him, in view of the law laid down by the supreme Court, the appellant is entitled to compensation on the principle of no fault liability for the injuries arising out of use of motor vehicle, viz. , truck bearing registration No. MP 09-D 1041.

( 6 ) SECTION 163-A was inserted in the act, w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994. It provides special provisions for compensation on structured formula basis. A conjoint reading of provision of the section 163-A with other sections of the Act reveals that it is open for a victim or legal representatives of a victim of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle to proceed for compensation based upon the principle of no fault liability. In other words, section 163-A provides for payment of compensation on structured formula in an accident resulting in death of or permanent disablement without the proof of negligence. Section 163-A of the act starts with the language that gives an overriding effect to it over any other law for time being in force. Moment a claimant comes forward with a prayer under section 163-A then he can succeed if it could be shown that prima facie death or permanent disability complained of was the result of the accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle. This is ratio of the decision of the apex Court in Rita Devi's case, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC ). In that case an autorickshaw was hired by passengers for use as a public carrier and later on slain body of autorickshaw driver was discovered. Considering the viability of the claim petition under section 163-A of the Act in the proximity of cause of such murder, their Lordships after considering various authorities, held that a death (murder) of an autorickshaw driver during the course of employment was an accident and covered by the section 163-A of the Act for payment of compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the deceased driver. There is no argument with the proposition of law laid down by their Lordships in the aforesaid decision, however, with the due respect, said prop9sition, in the opini