In claims filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation is based on the principle of no-fault liability; therefore, contributory negligence cannot be considered, and liability cannot be apportioned.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants–Original Claimants against the judgment and award dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Aravalli at Modasa in MACP No.619 of 2015.

2. Heard Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ratin P Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and2.

3. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in considering the issue of negligence, as the petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the assessment of 50% negligence on the part of the deceased by the Tribunal is unjust and improper. The apportionment of liability and assessment of negligence are also impermissible in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company v. Sunil Kumar , (2014) 1 SCC 580. In proceedings filed under Section 163A , the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect, or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in not considering future prospects of income and in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/-. In proceedings under Section 163A , the learned Tribunal is required to determine compensation on the basis of the structured formula provided in Schedule II. It is an admitted fact that the proceedings were filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act; however, while fixing the liability, the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased motorcyclist had contributed 50% negligence, and accordingly deducted the said percentage from the total compensation. Hence, it is requested that the present appeal be allowed.

4. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents on record, it is undisputed and admitted fact that the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act. As per the case of claimants, on 05.12.2008 at about 7:00 p.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-9-AJ-9300 from Khalvad towards Bhiloda, proceeding on the correct side of the road at a moderate speed. When the motorcycle reached near Mankroda Pickup Stand on the Idar–Bhiloda road, Opponent No. 1, driving a jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-9-G-251 at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries, including fractures, and subsequently succumbed to those injuries.

6. In view of the above, it appears that two vehicles were involved in the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a total amount of Rs. 4,36,500/-. However, considering 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal reduced the compe