##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.3085 of 2019

DATE: 24.03.2026

Between:

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (Now TSRTC) Rep. by its Regional Manager,

Regional Office, RTC Complex, New Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

…..Appellant AND

Intenti Venkatamma and three others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-TSRTC challenging the

award dated 05.12.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.414 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for the death of the deceased in a

motor vehicle accident.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and

perused the record.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-TSRTC argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle with

2

two pillion riders in violation of traffic rules, even though the police, after investigation, filed a final report stating that the driver of the RTC bus was not responsible for the accident. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is

exorbitant and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant contended that originally the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and thereafter as per orders dated 26.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.878/2017, the claim petition was amended to Section 163-A of the Act, which is based on the principle of "no-fault liability." He argued that the question of negligence is irrelevant in such proceedings and the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation as per

the structured formula.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident took place on 31.05.2015 involving an RTC bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6409 and a motorcycle. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the grant of compensation under Section 163A 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

3

vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by sub-section (2) of Section 163A of the Act. 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 sub-section (4) of Section 140, 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 taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self- contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. In a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. This Court observes that once the claim petition is filed or amended under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants are only required to prove that the death or permanent disablement has resulted from the accident involving the use of the motor vehicle. The legislative intent behind this provision is to provide social security