Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the judgment and award dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kolar, in MVC No. 177/2008, whereby compensation of Rs. 2,93,600/- with interest at 6% per annum was awarded to the claimant. The claimant, Mohammed Rafi @ Chotu, was the driver-cum-owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-07/5800. On 26.02.2008 at about 7.15 pm, while he was proceeding towards Kolar from Kolaramma tank, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-07/F-763 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his autorickshaw, causing a compound fracture to his right leg. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Kolar. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,93,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the claim petition was not maintainable as the claimant was the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and that Section 163-A is intended for third parties, not for the owner/driver. The court heard arguments from both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself, and therefore, the claim petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. The court analyzed Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and held that it is a no-fault liability provision intended to provide compensation to third parties in case of death or permanent disablement arising out of motor accidents, without proof of negligence. The provision does not extend to the owner/driver of the vehicle causing the accident. The court concluded that the claimant, being the driver-cum-owner of the autorickshaw, could not maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and award were set aside, and the claim petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A - Maintainability of Claim - Driver-cum-Owner - The claimant, being the driver-cum-owner of the autorickshaw involved in the accident, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that Section 163-A is a no-fault liability provision intended for third parties and not for the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was set aside. (Paras 4-6) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163-A - Interpretation - No-Fault Liability - The court interpreted Section 163-A and held that it provides for compensation to third parties in case of death or permanent disablement arising out of motor accidents, without proof of negligence. The provision does not extend to the owner/driver of the vehicle causing the accident. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claimant who is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle can maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2014 passed in MVC No. 177/2008 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kolar, is set aside. The claim petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Law Points
- Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 is a no-fault liability provision intended for third parties
- not for the owner/driver of the offending vehicle
- Claimant being driver-cum-owner cannot maintain claim under Section 163-A
- Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner/driver under Section 163-A
- Compensation awarded under Section 163-A to owner/driver is liable to be set aside.
