Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1224 (AP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. VAPPU

2007-12-19

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, M.N.KRISHNAN

body2007
M. N. KRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in o. P. (MV) No. 619 of 2003. The claimants are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, who died in a road accident. The petition was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act impleading the owner, driver and the insurance company of the bike on which he was travelling as a pillion rider and also the owner, driver and the insurance company of the bus as respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Tribunal found that the legal representatives are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,08,167 and thereafter granted an award. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the insurance company would contend that though in a petition under section 163-A the question of negligence need not be considered, according to him, in order to resolve the dispute inter se between the respondents a finding has to be arrived at and the compensation has to be fixed and apportioned in accordance with the rules. According to him, the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the rider of the bike in which the son of the claimants was travelling as a pillion rider. Under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act it is not necessary at all to consider the question of negligence. Under section 163-A (2) in any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), 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. So, section 163-A (2) envisages a situation where more than one vehicle is involved in the accident and it is stipulated tven in such cases, the question of negligence need not be considered by Tribunal. When it is so, it will be against the spirit of section 163-A, a finding is entered into on the question of negligence so as to resolve any dispute that may arise inter se between the respondents. When it is so, it will be against the spirit of section 163-A, a finding is entered into on the question of negligence so as to resolve any dispute that may arise inter se between the respondents. We are of the view that section 163-A totally prohibits a question of finding on negligence so far as a claim preferred by the injured or the legal representatives of a deceased is concerned. A full Bench of this court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi C. Salian, 2003 ACJ 2033 (Kerala), held that the insurance company cannot defeat a claim under section 163-A on the ground that the death or disablement had occurred due to wrongful act or neglect or default on the part of the deceased or the disabled person. Actually this decision takes into consideration a situation even when the accident took place on account of negligence of claimant or of the deceased and, therefore, in a situation of this nature which is under challenge there cannot be any negligence attributed on the deceased for the reason that he was only travelling as a pillion rider in a motorbike. Therefore, we find that Tribunal was only just in finding that the entire amount of compensation has to be paid by respondent no. 6 in O. P. (MV) No. 619 of 2003 which is the insurer of the bus. ( 3 ) PUNJAB and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tula Ram, 2004 ACJ 741 (Pandh), held that the claimants are not required to prove rash and negligent driving; requirement of law would be that there should be admission of accident arising out of use of motor vehicle which should result in death or permanent disablement. The court referred to the decision of the supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC ). The basic object incorporating section 163-A is to enable the claimants and they would not be required to furnish proof with regard to committing any fault. It is also clear that on the basis of the structured formula envisaged under section 163-A read with Second Schedule, the claimants would be able to avoid long- drawn litigation and consequent delay in the payment of compensation. It is also clear that on the basis of the structured formula envisaged under section 163-A read with Second Schedule, the claimants would be able to avoid long- drawn litigation and consequent delay in the payment of compensation. Therefore, no specific issue is required to be framed because the scheme of section 163-A is an alternative to determination of compensation on no fault basis. Therefore if an issue is raised in order to determine the inter se dispute then also it will be time-consuming and defeating the object of the enactment. ( 4 ) SO far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal found that the father was aged 63 years and the mother was aged 50 and had taken an appropriate multiplier of 8. The interest rate of the bank deposit is very low and there is inflation. An amount of Rs. 2,000 had been taken as the income and an appropriate multiplier had been used. On all other heads also the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. So the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. - .