LexSHIVAJI AND ANR. versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
SHIVAJI AND ANR.
v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2018)
AUGUST 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.163A – Fatal accident – A car
dashed into a truck, resulting in the death of three persons including
the driver of the vehicle and injuring two others, all of them were
travelling in the car – Claim petition u/s.163A filed by appellants-
parents of the deceased driver – Allowed by the Tribunal – However,
High Court held that since the deceased driver was the tortfeasor
and responsible for causing accident, therefore, compensation could
not have been awarded and absolved the insurer of the liability –
On appeal, held: Insurer cannot raise a defence of negligence on
the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation in a
proceeding u/s.163A – Permission to raise such a defence in a
proceeding u/s.163A of the Act would bring the proceeding at par
u/s.166 of the Act, which would be inconsistent with the legislative
intention – The impugned judgment of the High Court absolving
the insurer set aside and the order of the Tribunal restored.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr.
AIR 2017 SC 5710 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
AIR 2017 SC 5710
relied on
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2816
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2017 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in MFA No.20469/2012(MV).
Manjunath Meled, Ms. Vijayalaxmi U. (for Mr. Anil Kumar),
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Kapil Midha,
Ms. Abhivandana Chaudhury, Adv. for the appearing parties.
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 496
496
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
497
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arises
from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
in an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(MACT), Belgaum.
2. The appellants are parents of Shaji Shivaji Dudhade, who was
the driver of a car bearing Registration No. MH-06/W-604, which met
with an accident on 15 June 2010. The accident occurred when the car
dashed into a truck, bearing Registration No. KA-25/B-5363, resulting
in his death; the death of two other persons and injuries to two more
persons, all of whom were travelling in the car.
3. The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal noted that
since the claim petition had been filed under Section 163A of the Act,
the question of proving that the accident happened due to the rash and
negligent act of the driver did not arise. By its award dated 30 July 2011,
the Tribunal allowed a claim of Rs 4,60,800 together with interest at the
rate 9% per annum.
4. The insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Karnataka. The appellants also filed an appeal before the High Court
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The
High Court, by its impugned judgment, allowed the insurer’s appeal and
set aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court opined that the idea
behind enacting Section 163A is to ensure that even in the absence of
any mistake on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the injured
person or the legal heirs of the deceased person are compensated by the
owner and the insurer. As a result, under this provision, since the victim
has been contemplated to be an innocent third party, protection is extended
only to the injured person or to the legal heirs of the deceased victim,
and not to the driver who is responsible for causing the said accident.
Since the deceased driver in this case was the tortfeasor and responsible
for causing the accident, the High Court held that compensation could
not have been awarded to the appellants.
5. The issue which arises before us is no longer res integra and is
covered by a recent judgment of three judges of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar &Anr.,1 wherein it was
1 AIR 2017 SC 5710
SHIVAJI AND ANR.v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer
and/or to understand Section 163A of the Act as contemplating such a
situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind
introduction of thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.