Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Lalita wd/o Rajkumar Sawalkar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was later converted to a petition under Section 163-A, seeking compensation for the death of her husband Rajkumar Sawalkar in a motor vehicular accident on 09/03/2007. The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by Sanjay Marko, when an unknown vehicle dashed against the motorcycle, causing the death of both the rider and the pillion rider. The claimant alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the unknown vehicle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur, dismissed the claim petition on two grounds: first, that the deceased being a pillion rider was not covered under the expression 'any person' in Section 163-A, and second, that since it was a hit-and-run case with no particulars of the offending vehicle, the petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. The claimant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the expression 'any person' in Section 163-A is wide enough to include a pillion rider, and that a claim under Section 163-A is maintainable even in a hit-and-run case as it is a no-fault liability regime. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to compute compensation as per the structured formula under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A - 'Any person' includes pillion rider - The expression 'any person' in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is wide enough to include a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The Tribunal erred in holding that a pillion rider is not covered under Section 163-A. (Paras 4-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A - Maintainability in hit-and-run case - A claim petition under Section 163-A is maintainable even in a hit-and-run case where the offending vehicle is unknown. The scheme under Section 163-A is a no-fault liability regime and does not require proof of negligence or identity of the offending vehicle. (Paras 4-5) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A - Compensation - Structured formula - The claimant is entitled to compensation as per the structured formula under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule. The Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition was erroneous. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a pillion rider is covered under the expression 'any person' in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether a claim petition under Section 163-A is maintainable in a hit-and-run case where the offending vehicle is unknown.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 08/10/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur in M.A.C.P. No.54/2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal is directed to compute compensation as per the structured formula under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12/04/2021.
Law Points
- Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- any person includes pillion rider
- hit and run case maintainable under Section 163-A
- no need to prove negligence
- structured formula compensation
