Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Baburao Ashtekar, was employed as a driver of a rickshaw owned by respondent No.1, Balasaheb Baburao Ashtekar. On 29 August 2004, while driving the rickshaw, it turned turtle due to the bad condition of the road, causing him a fracture of the right lower rib and resulting in 25% permanent disablement. He filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kopargaon, seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the rickshaw. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimant did not fall within the meaning of the term 'victim' under Section 163A and could not claim compensation for injuries suffered in an accident caused by his own fault. The claimant appealed to the High Court. The High Court considered the legal issue of whether a driver can maintain a claim under Section 163A despite his own negligence. The appellant's counsel argued that under Section 163A, which is a no-fault liability provision, the defence of negligence is not available to the insurer, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in United India Insurance Company vs. Sunil Kumar and another, AIR 2017 SC 5710. The respondent-insurer opposed the claim. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the ground of the claimant's own negligence. It observed that Section 163A is a no-fault liability scheme and the insurer cannot raise the defence of negligence. The Court further noted that the vehicle was insured under a package policy, which covers the driver as a third party. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's award and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim in accordance with law, including the aspect of quantum of compensation.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - No-Fault Liability - Section 163A - Driver as Victim - The driver of a vehicle can maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained in an accident, even if the accident occurred due to his own negligence, as the provision is a no-fault liability scheme and the defence of negligence is not available to the insurer. (Paras 1-6) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Package Policy - Coverage of Driver - Under a package policy, the driver of the insured vehicle is covered as a third party, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation for injuries suffered by the driver in an accident. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a driver of a vehicle can maintain a claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained in an accident caused by his own negligence, and whether the insurer can raise the defence of negligence in such proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 8.11.2012, and remanded the matter back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kopargaon, for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, including the aspect of quantum of compensation. The Tribunal was directed to decide the claim expeditiously.
Law Points
- No-fault liability under Section 163A
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- driver as victim
- package policy coverage
- negligence not a defence
