IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3633 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus RAMNATH JAGDEV BHAGAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 18/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 17.07.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (6th Additional District and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad [R] at Mirzapur) in M.A.C. Petition No. 441 of 2008, filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby compensation was awarded on account of the death of Mr. Suresh Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in the motor accident.

2. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

3. At the outset, learned advocate, Mr. Ninad P Shah appearing on behalf of Ms. Aditi S Raol, learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has not decided the issue of negligence in right earnest. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider. He further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Claim Petition on this sole ground.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants/respondent nos.1 & 2 herein vehemently submitted that the Claim Petition was filed before the learned Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, therefore, the issue of negligence cannot be gone into, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr. reported in [(2019) 12 SCC 398].

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it is evident from the records that the Claim Petition was preferred for seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The issue of negligence cannot be gone into if the petition is filed under

163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is no more res-integra and same has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr. (supra), wherein the Apex Court has observed in para no. 8 as under:- “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 Section 163A(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 Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A 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 ta