JUDGMENTS RELATED TO SEC. 163 – A OF MV ACT

 

JUDGMENTS RELATED TO SEC. 163 – A OF MV ACT

 

1.U/S166&163Aincomeof deceased more than Rs.40,000whetherTribunal can reject an application u/s 163A? Held – noTribunal

ought to have converted the same one u/s 166

2004 ACJ 934 (SC), 2018 ACJ 2147 (Ker) but See

2014 ACJ 2434 (Gauhati).

 It is also held in 2016 ACJ 176 (P&H) that Tribunal has no power to suo moto allow such application.

1-AWhether Tribunal has suo motu powers to convert a

claim petition from one u/s 166 to 163A?HeldNo.

2017 1070 (Gua)

1-BClaim petition u/s 163A in respect of accident

which occurred on 7.4.1994 i.e. prior to 14.11.1994 when

Section 163A was incorporated – whether in such

situation claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable?HeldNo.

2018 ACJ 2104 (P&H) – Dhannalal v/s. D.P. Vijayvagiya,

1996 ACJ 1013 (SC) followed.

1-CEven after passing an order u/s 140 of the Act, an

order of conversion from a claim petition u/s 166 to

163A of MV Act can be passed. 2022 ACJ 1391.

2 Unknown assailant fired on driver while he was

Driving truck dashed with tree whetherTribunal

was justified in concluding that accident was a

vehicular accident and claimant is entitled for

compensation u/s 163A of MV Act– held:yes

2000 ACJ 801 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1658 (MP), one

another judgment of Guj High court, Jst R K Abichandani J

3 U/s 163A truck capsized driver died whether entitled for compensation held –yes, negligence is not required to be proved in 163A application

2011 ACJ 2442 (MP)

4 New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand

Mukhi and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417, wherein, the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party. In the said case the court held that neither Section 163A nor Section 166 would be

applicable.

5 The deceased was travelling on Motor Cycle, which he

borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal to his native place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was proceeding on IlkalKustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron sheet, which suddenly stopped and consequently deceased who was proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed bullock cart. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he  sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of

body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, Ilkal, he died.

It was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the claimants are not the `third party, and therefore, they are not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163A of the MVA. In support of the said contention, the

counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the

case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi,

(2008) 5 SCC 736; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417, 2015

ACJ 1477 (Cal)Ningamma v/s UiI Com, 2009 ACJ 2020

(SC) followed.

In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736,

wherein, it has been categorically held that in a

case where third party is involved, the liability

of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was

also held in the said decision that where, however,

compensation is claimed for the death of the owner

or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract

of insurance being governed by the contract qua IP,

the claim of the claimant against the insurance

company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was

held in the said decision that Section 163A

of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in

respect of an accident wherein the owner of the

motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision

further held that the question is no longer res

integra. The liability under section 163A

of the MVAct is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person

cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient,

with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the

deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms

of Section 163A of the MVA. Apex Court held “

the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly

applicable to the facts of the present case. In the

present case, the deceased was not the owner of the

motorbike in question. He borrowed the said

motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot

be held to be employee of the owner of the

motorbike although he was authorised to drive the

said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would

step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.”

2009 (13) SCC 710 – Ningmma v/s United India.

2017 ACJ 2750, 2019 ACJ 963 (Gau)

6 S. 163A liability under liability u/s. 163A is

on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be

both, a claimant as also a recipient for the said

purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance

could be taken recourse to liability of insurance

company was confined to Rs. 1,00,000 appeal

partly allowed.

2008(5) SCC 736 Rajni Devi.

But when trust is the owner of the vehicle and

its employee sustain injury, IC of such vehicle can

be held responsible, provided such vehicle is

covered with the comprehensive policy.

2015 ACJ 1623 (Raj)

7 Deceased died due to electrocution while engaged in

welding job on a stationary truck and not due to

any fault or omission on the part of driverwhether

the claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable

and IC can be held liable?held: yes any fault or

omission on the part of driver has no relevance and

driver is not necessary party in claim petition

filed u/s 163A

2011 ACJ 2608several

SC ratios followed

8 U/s 163AMotorcycle hit a large stone lying on the

tar roadfatal injuryTribunal found that deceased was negligent and entitled for compensation IC led no evidence to point out that

deceased was negligent IC held liable.

2012 ACJ 1Sinitha

but also see A.Sridhar,

reported in 2012 AAC 2478 and also see – 2004

ACJ 934.

9 U/ s 163Awhether the claim petition u/s 163A is

maintainable without joining the owner and driver

of the offending vehicle? Heldyessince the

question of fault is not of the offending vehicle

is of no consequence

2012 ACJ 271

10 U/s 163A – procedure and powers of TribunalTribunal

need not to go into the negligence part SC decisions referred to Guidelines issued.

2012 ACJ 1065 (Ker)

11 U/s 163Adeceased died due to heart attack whether

claimants are entitled for compensation u/s 163A of the MV Act?Held: No in absence of any evidence to the effect that deceased died due to heavy burden or there any other sustainable ground.

2012 ACJ 1134 (AP)Murder

– 2012 ACJ (Ker)

Culpable Homicide Altercation between conductor and passenger conductor pushed passenger out of bus – passenger crushed in the said bus – conductor prosecuted u/s 324 & 304 of IPC whether in such situation, since driver failed in his duty

to stop the bus, he is liable for accident. Owner of bus vicariously held liable and IC is directed to indemnify owner of the bus – further held that accident was arising out of use of motor vehicle.

12 u/s 163A Minor girl travelling in the Auto Rickshaw, received injuries from the bottle thrown from the other vehiclewhether

claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable in such case? Held

Yes

2012 ACJ 1162 (Ker).

13 U/ s 163Awhether the compensation has to be awarded u/s 163A it has to be as per the structure formula given under the Second Schedule? Held:Yes the benefit of filing a petition on no fault liability can be claimed on the basis of income

with a cap of Rs.40,000/2012

ACJ 1251 (Del)2013

ACJ 2870, Gaytri v/s

Amir Sing (Del) various

SC decisions are

considered.

14 Earlier direction of High Court to disposed of

application preferred u/s 166 of the Act, while

deciding an appeal preferred against the order

passed u/s 163A of the Act. Held simultaneous

petitions u/s 166 and 163A are not maintainable.

2012 (2) GLH 325Ravindra Senghani

15 U/ s 163Awhether a claim petition is maintainable

when the income of deceased is more than 40,000/per

annum?HeldNo.

2012 ACJ 1687

16 U/ s 163AClaim petition under 163A is maintainable

against other vehicle, which was not at fault?Held:Yes.

2012 ACJ 1896SC

judgments followed.

17 Whether claimant can convert an application u/s 166

to 163A and vise versa?HeldyesSC

judgments

followed2011

ACJ 721

2012 ACJ 1986

2022 ACJ 800 (Kar) – wherein it has been held that

Tribunal has powers to scale down the annual income

below Rs.40,000/. And if claimant has deposed that

his income was beyond Rs.40,000/Tribunal can not

entertain such claim petition.

18 U/s 163Awhether driver of the offending vehicle

is required to be joined? HeldNot necessary.

2012 AAC 2495 (Del)

19 U/s 163Acollision between two vehicles joint

Tortfeasor whether the tortfeasor is entitled to

get amount of compensation?HeldYes.

2012 ACJ 2206 (Ker)2004

ACJ Deepal G. Soni

(SC), relied upon.

20 U/s 163A Whether Tribunal can award higher amount

than what is been provided under the Second Schedule? HeldYes.

2012 ACJ 2292 (Kar) – 2008 ACJ 2148 (SC),

Sapna v/s UII Com., 2015 ACJ 1542 (All)

But see 2016 ACJ 2529 (Ker) where after following

the ratio laid down in the case of Deepal

Soni, Court held that only those persons whose

income is less than 40,000/can file an

application u/s 163A and those whose income is

more than 40,000 are not entitled to file an

application u/s 163A.

21 Claim petition u/s 163A for the death of the owner

is maintainable? Held No claimants cannot be

both i.e owner and claimant.

2012 ACJ 2400 (MP). 2008 ACJ 1441Rajni Devi

and 2009 ACJ 2020Ningamma (both SC – followed).          2019 ACJ 435 (P&H)

22 Use of vehicle live electricity wire driver came

in contact with it died whether claim petition is

maintainable? Held:Yes.

2012 ACJ (AP). SC judgments relied upon.

23 Conversion of an application preferred u/s 166 to

one under 163Awhether court can go into the

legality and correctness of pleadings at such

stage? HeldNo.

2012 AAC 2610 (Del)2012

ACJ 2482 (P&H)

24 S.166, S.163AClaim for compensation Remedy

u/s. 163A and S. 166 being final and independent of each

other, claimant cannot pursue them simultaneously Claim

petition finally determined under S. 163A Claimant

would be precluded from proceeding further

with petition filed under S. 166.

2011 SC 1138Dhanbai K Gadhvi.

25 The law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna

Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC

1248) was accepted by the legislature while

enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by

introducing Section 163A of the Act providing for

payment of compensation notwithstanding anything

contained in the Act or in any other law for the

time being in force that the owner of a motor

vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable

to pay in the case of death or permanent

disablement due to accident arising out of the use

of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in

the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the

victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made

under subsection (1) of Section 163A

of the Act,  the 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 concerned. in the judgments of

threeJudge

Bench in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna

Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SCC 441 : (AIR 1977 SC

1248)

26 Unknown vehicle whether claim petition u/s 163A is

maintainable?Held:yes.

2013 ACJ 290 (Del)

27 u/s 163A, 140 & 166 – conversion of an application

u/s 166 from 163A, after getting an amount under

section 140 is permissible Held No.

2013 ACJ 1082.

28 Claim petition u/s 166 and 163A An application

u/s 163A is allowed Whether a claim petition u/s

166 is then maintainable?HeldNo.

2013 ACJ 1779 (Guj)

29 Claim petition u/s 163Aincome of the deceased is

shown, more than 40,000/per annum whether is

maintainable? HeldNo.

2014 ACJ 2329 (Guj) New.I.A. Com. v/s .

30 163AWhen it is proved that claimant/deceased

himself was negligent in causing the accident IC

is not liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 2586 (AP) Bajaj Allianz v/s Gaddam

Swami, 2013 ACJ 2622 (Ker) – O.I. Com. v/s

P.P. Nandanan.

31 163ADriver and Cleaner sustained injuries while

unloading goodsWhether claim petition u/s 163A is

maintainable?HeldYes.

2014 ACJ 1206

32 Judgments of Sinitha and Shila Dutta are referred

to Full Bench.

2013 ACJ 2856UII

Com. v/s Sunil Kumar

33 Conversion of an application u/s 163A to one u/s

166whether permissible?HeldYes.

2014 ACJ 493 (AP),

34 163AFailure of brakes whether in such situation,

a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable? Held Yes.

2014 ACJ 1128

35 U/ s 163AWhether the IC is required to be

exonerated in a case where IC has failed to prove

and point out that deceased himself was negligent. Held : No IC

held liable.

2012 SC 797Sinitha's case.

36 Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable

when award is already passed u/s 161 of the Act?HeldYes.

2012 ACJ 2314 (Chh).

37 Second Schedule of M.V. Act needs to be revised

and further direction are given to award

compensation in the cases of child aged between 0

to 5 years and 5 to 10 years.

2014 ACJ Puttamma v/s Narayana Reddy (SC).

38 Claimant of claim petition preferred u/s 163A are

not entitled for compensation under the head loss

of consortium, funeral etc.

2015 ACJ 1100 (P&H).

39 Claim petition preferred u/s 163A – joint

tortfeasors – tribunal decided negligence in ratio

of 50:50 between two vehicles. Liability of other

IC will not be limited to 50% only.

2015 ACJ 1271 (Ker)

40Amount awarded u/s 140 can not be order to be

refunded when main claim petition is ordered to be

dismissed.

2017 ACJ 133 (MP)

41Accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the

deceased – whether claim petition u/s 163A is

maintainable?HeldNo.

Ningamma vs. UII Com, reported in 2009 ACJ 2020(SC)

and OII Com vs. Sunil Kumar, reported in 2008 ACJ

1441 (SC) relied upon.

2017 ACJ 390 (Kar), 2017 ACJ 402 (Ker)

42Second Schedule has been declared as redundant,

irrational and unworkable by the Apex Court in the

case of Puttamma vs. Narayana Reddy, 2014 ACJ 526

(SC)

43Whether section 163A can be made applicable to an

accident which had taken place prior to the

introduction of the Second Schedule of the MV Act?

Held – No. It has prospective application and

would not apply to an accident which and taken

place prior to 14111994.

Kanhaiyalal Vs. Sitabai., 2004 ACJ 1372. Also see

FAO No.1037 of 1998 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High

Court, date of decision: May 31, 2017, Baldev Kaur

and others v/s. Om Parkash.

44Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valiben

Laxmanbhai Thakore v/s. Kandla Dock Labour Board,

FA No.3907 of 2017, dated 27th June, 2018 (Jst Akil

Kureshi and Jst B D Karia) has referred the issue

to the Full Bench to decide an issue as to whether

a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable when

deceased himself was solely negligentin the

accident?

This issue is already decided by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v/s. New

India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485 and held

that same is maintainable. It was a case of tyre

burst and vehicle which deceased was plying

capsized. Tyre burst and frame of the wheel hit

the claimant arising out of use of the motor

vehicle 2022

ACJ 1723 (Mad)