CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 08-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI
v.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 2020)
JUNE 08, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.163A – Son of the claimant,
allegedly a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident – MACT held
the insurance company liable to pay Rs.1.99 lakhs with 6% interest
thereon – Judgment set aside by High Court – Held: Claimant need
not plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim
was made, was due to any negligence or default of the owner of the
vehicle or of any other person – Thus, it is not relevant that the
person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have
been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in
the death of the person driving the vehicle – High Court wrong in
stating that it was necessary u/s.163A to prove that somebody else
was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which,
the death of the victim would take place – Amount mentioned in
MACT’s judgment to be paid with the correction that the multiplier
instead of being 8 is now 17 – Interest also remains the same –
Insurance company to pay the amount due to the claimant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The claimant need not plead or establish that the
death in respect of which the claim was made, was due to any
negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other
person. (emphasis supplied). It is not relevant that the person
insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been
riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the
death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court is clearly
wrong in stating that it was necessary under Section 163A to prove
that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently,
as a result of which, the death of the victim would take place.
[Paras 12, 13][872-F-H; 873-A]
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 868
868
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2527
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.12.2016 of the High Court
of Uttrakhand at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 10 of 2010.
N. K. Sahoo, Naresh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anshum Jain, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 18.03.2004, an incident took place, by which the son of the
claimant, who allegedly was a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to
as ‘MACT’) after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that
the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
No. 2, who was the owner of the motor vehicle and who was driving the
aforesaid motor vehicle. The victim was aged 28 years. Coming to the
conclusion that a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month would be adequate,
with a deduction of one-third, and taking the multiplier as 8 dependant
upon the claimant’s age, the MACT finally held the insurance company
liable to pay a total of Rs. 1.99 lakhs + 6 per cent interest thereon.
3. In the appeal filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand, by
the impugned order dated 28.12.2016, the High Court held that since the
insurance company denied that the deceased was only a pillion rider and
stated that he was, in fact, driving the vehicle himself; also since the
claimant was not present at the spot; and since Shri Virender Bijalwan,
respondent No. 2, who ought to have been called as he was the only
surviving eye witness, not being called as a witness, therefore, proved
fatal to the claim, as a result of which, the petition under Section 163A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would have to be dismissed.  Further, the
High Court also held that nothing was brought on record to show that
the deceased was having a valid driving license.  In this view of the
matter, the appeal was allowed and the judgment passed by the MACT
was set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
4. Shri N. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has argued that the petition being filed under Section 163A, it
is clear that the liability is ‘no fault’, as a result of which, it is not necessary
to prove the negligence or any rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver of the vehicle. He further argued that the multiplier of 8 is ex-
facie incorrect since it was taken on th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.