Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Not mentioned, J
Third Respondent/Insurer – Appellant
Versus
Claim Petitioners – Respondent
O.P.(MV) No.77/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, claims under Sections 166 and 163A are mutually exclusive; the Tribunal's conversion of a claim from 166 to 163A was impermissible and leads to incorrect compensation application.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 163A - Appeal filed by third respondent/insurer aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal - Tribunal's conversion of application under Section 166 to Section 163A was impermissible - It is essential for claimants under Section 166 to prove negligence; Section 163A does not require proof of negligence. (Paras 11.1 and 12)
(B) Compensation - The Tribunal awarded compensation as per amended Section 163A; however, the incident occurred before amendment took effect, making the application of amended provision incorrect. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was knocked down by a jeep, leading to a claim for compensation of ₹9,00,000/- filed by legal representatives. Tribunal awarded ₹5,25,000/- citing negligence of the jeep driver.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal erred in converting the claim from Section 166 to Section 163A, a mutual exclusivity exists between those provisions for claims.
Issues: Primarily revolves around the appropriate application of compensation laws and procedural requirements for claims under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between claims under Sections 166 and 163A, noting the necessity for clear proof of negligence under Section 166. It ruled the Tribunal's conversion of the claim was erroneous given the timeline of legislative changes.
Result: Appeal allowed; Award modified to affirm ₹1,44,000/- compensation under Section 166(1)(c).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the accident and compensation claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. responses and arguments presented by the parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on the tribunal's application of the law. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. the final ruling and reaffirmation of compensation under section 166. (Para 12) |
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.77/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 14/08/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners, first respondent and supplementary respondent nos.4 to 6 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioners, on 30/05/2015 at 10:00 a.m., the deceased was walking through the extreme side of the road from Puzhivayal to Kartikulam and when he reached near Valanchery palam, jeep bearing registration no.KL-12/A-5679 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹9,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy. The negligence attributed to the first respondent was denied. It was contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
5. Respondents 4 to 6 who are the legal representatives of deceased second respondent/owner entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the claim petitioners. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the first respondent/driver. Hence awarded an amount of ₹5,25,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was served on the respondents, they neither appeared in person nor through counsel.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that an application under Section 166 of the Act was converted by the Tribunal into an application under Section 163A of the Act and thereafter the benefits as per the amended has been awarded, which is a gross error committed by the Tribunal and hence requires to be rectified.
11. As noticed earlier, though notice was served on the respondents, they have neither appeared in person nor through counsel. The application moved by the claim petitioners was under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal relying on the dictum in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , AIR 2007 SC 1474, went on to consider the application under Section 163A of the Act. InManjuri Bera (Supra), it has been held that where a legal representative who is not a dependent, files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to under Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to
