Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require proof of negligence for compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1747 of

2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the dismissal of the impugned award dated 14.03.2016. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 04.05.2014 at about

08.15 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-13-L-9034 from Kozhikode to Meenchanda, a car bearing registration No.KL-25-8019 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,88,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the claimant. They contended that the claimant had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and was charge-sheeted under Sections 185 & 186 of the Motor Vehicles Act . Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 & Exts.B1 and C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the M.V. Act”). It is further submitted that the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the claimant and, on that basis, dismissed the claim petition, noting that a charge-sheet was filed against the claimant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when a claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation, the tribunal need not look into the aspect of negligence as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in Suresh v. Vasantha Shetty [ 2025 (5) KHC 520 ]. It is further submitted that though the claim petition was filed under of the M.V.Act, and since an amendment has come into effect in the year 2018, being a benevolent legislature, the appellant herein is entitled for the compensation of ₹2,50,000/- as per amendment.

7. Sub Section (2) of Section 163A of the Act reads as follows:

XXX In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

This provision makes it clear that the proof of fault or negligence is not required in a claim under Section 163A . Further following the Larger Bench of this Court in Suresh v. Vasantha Shetty [ 2025 (5) KHC 520 ], I hold that negligence need not proved in a petition filed under of the MV Act.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.A4 discharge card, the appellant had sustained a fracture of his right leg and thereby suffered grievous injuries on account of the accident. It was further submitted that, as per Ext.C1 disability certificate, the appellant has a permanent disability of 12%, and therefore, he is entitled to compensat