Supreme Court of India
SHIVAJI AND ANR. versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. on 9 August 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
496
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
A
SHIVAJI AND ANR.
v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
B(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 carCdashed into a truck, resulting in the death of three persons includingthe driver of the vehicle and injuring two others, all of them weretravelling 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 tortfeasorDand responsible for causing accident, therefore, compensation couldnot have been awarded and absolved the insurer of the liability –On appeal, held: Insurer cannot raise a defence of negligence onthe part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation in aproceeding u/s.163A – Permission to raise such a defence in aproceeding u/s.163A of the Act would bring the proceeding at parEu/s.166 of the Act, which would be inconsistent with the legislativeintention – The impugned judgment of the High Court absolvingthe 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.F
Case Law Reference
AIR 2017 SC 5710 relied on Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2816of 2018.G
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2017 of the High Courtof 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.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arisesfrom a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Courtin an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT), Belgaum.
2. The appellants are parents of Shaji Shivaji Dudhade, who wasthe driver of a car bearing Registration No. MH-06/W-604, which metwith an accident on 15 June 2010. The accident occurred when the cardashed into a truck, bearing Registration No. KA-25/B-5363, resultingin his death; the death of two other persons and injuries to two morepersons, all of whom were travelling in the car.
3. The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation underSection 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal noted thatsince the claim petition had been filed under Section 163A of the Act,the question of proving that the accident happened due to the rash andnegligent 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 therate 9% per annum.
4. The insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court ofKarnataka. The appellants also filed an appeal before the High Courtseeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. TheHigh Court, by its impugned judgment, allowed the insurer’s appeal andset aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court opined that the ideabehind enacting Section 163A is to ensure that even in the absence ofany mistake on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the injuredperson or the legal heirs of the deceased person are compensated by theowner and the insurer. As a result, under this provision, since the victimhas been contemplated to be an innocent third party, protection is extendedonly 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 responsiblefor causing the accident, the High Court held that compensation couldnot have been awarded to the appellants.
5. The issue which arises before us is no longer res integra and iscovered by a recent judgment of three judges of this Court in UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar &Anr.,[1 ]wherein it was1 AIR 2017 SC 5710
A
B
C
D
EFG
H
Aheld that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurerand/or to understand Section 163A of the Act as contemplating such asituation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behindintroduction of this provision, which is “final compensation within a limitedtime frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situationswhere the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability wasBtaking an unduly long time”. The Court observed that if an insurer waspermitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163A of theAct, it would “bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at parwith the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not onlybe self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention”.CConsequently, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of theAct, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part ofthe victim to counter a claim for compensation.
6. Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will haveto be allowed.D
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment ofthe High Court absolving the insurer is set aside and the order of theTribunal is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
EAnkit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H