LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 223 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013) OCTOBER 29, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: A B s. 163-A rlw s. 170 and 173 - Special provisions as to c payment of compensation on structured formula basis - Appeal by insurer - Held: In view of points (iii) to (v) in Shila Datta's case having been referred to larger Bench as also the view in Sinitha's case that it is.-open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, 'to defeat a claim u/s 163-A of 0 the Act by pleading and establishing a fault ground (wrongful act or neglect or default), matrek referred to larger Bench. s. 163-A - Petition for compensation - Held: Liability to make compensation u/s 163-A is on the principle of no fault and, therefore, the question as to who is at fault is immaterial E and foreign to an enquiry uls 163-A -- Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of user of vehicle and the vehicle is insured, insurance company or owner, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation, which is a statutory obligation. F The respondent filed a claim petition uls 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a road accident. The award passed by the Tribunal was G challenged by the Insurance Company in an appeal before the High Court, which, placing reliance on the judgment in Nicolletta Rohtagi's case; dismissed the 223 H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A appeal holding that the Insurance Company failed to comply with s. 170 of the Act. Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1 The impugned order is based on the B principle laid down in Nicolletta Rohtagi's case, the correctness of which is doubted in Shila Datta's case, in which points (iii) to (v) have been referred to a larger Bench. [para 2] [226-0-E] c United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta and Others 2011 (14) SCR 763 = (2011) 10 SCC 509; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nico/Jetta Rohtagi 2002 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 456 = (2002) 7 sec 456 - referred to. 1.2 Besides, in the instant case, claim petition was D filed u/se 163-A of the Act, which was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the same was not maintainable since the injured himself was driving the vehicle and that no disability certificate was produced. Interpreting s. 163-A of the Act, in Sinitha's case it has E been held that it is open to the owner or the insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim u/s 163- A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence a fault ground (wrongful act or neglect or default). The Court concluded that s.163 of the Act is F founded under the fault liability principle. The Three- Judge Bench of this Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case was not placed before the Bench deciding Sinitha's case. [para 3-5] [227-A-B; 228-C-D, F-G; 229-G] G National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and others 2011 (16) SCR 166 = (2012) 2 SCC 356; Oriental ln,surance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a 2001 (2) SCR 999 = (2001) 5 SCC 175; Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 - H referred to. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SUNIL 225 KUMAR & ANR. 1.3 This Court is, therefore, of the view that liability A to make compensation u/s 163-A is on the principle of no fault and, therefore, the question as to who is at fault is immaterial and foreign to an enquiry u/s 163-A. Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of the user of the vehicle and B the vehicle is insured, the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay the compensation, which is a statutory obligation. Section 163-A does not make any provision for apportionment of the liability. If the owner of the vehicle or the insurance c company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of the victim or claimant, it would defeat the very object and purpose of s. 163-A of the Act. Legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence on the part of the owner D or the driver. In this view of the matter, the view in Sinitha's case cannot be concurred with. [para 8-9] [231- C-F] 1.4 Consequently, the matter is r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.