In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that proving negligence of the driver is not a prerequisite for claiming compensation. The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kirti Singh ruled that under Section 163-A, compensation is granted based on a structured formula without requiring proof of fault or negligence.
Background of the Case
The ruling came in a batch of appeals, namely FAO Nos. 5311, 5313, 5314, and 6079 of 2015, arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 27, 2013. The accident occurred near Sugar Mill Road, Phaphrana, when a Mahindra Bolero Jeep (HR-05V-6000) collided with a stationary tractor trolley loaded with sugarcane that had been negligently parked in the middle of the road without indicators or warnings. The accident led to grievous injuries to the occupants, including Gurjinder Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, and Master Jobanpreet Singh, who subsequently filed claims under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.
The tribunal awarded compensation based on the structured formula under Section 163-A, prompting an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the compensation determination. The insurance company contended that negligence needed to be established, particularly when a claim is made under this section.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether negligence of the driver is a necessary requirement for claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Whether medical expenses exceeding the statutory limit in the structured formula can be granted as compensation under Section 163-A.
3. Whether a claimant who seeks compensation under Section 163-A is barred from later filing a claim under Section 166 (fault-based claims).
Observations and Ruling of the High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that Section 163-A operates independently of the principle of fault liability. The court emphasized that this provision was introduced to provide expeditious relief to victims, and claimants are not required to establish any negligence or wrongful act by the driver of the vehicle.
Key Observations by the Court:
– “The present petitions have been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. For deciding these petitions, the claimants are not required to prove negligence on the part of the driver. Only the use of the vehicle needs to be shown by the claimants.”
– “Since the insurance company allowed the claimants to present unrebutted evidence regarding medical expenses, it cannot now challenge that such expenses should have been limited to the statutory cap in the structured formula.”
– “Once a claimant opts for a petition under Section 163-A, they forfeit their right to pursue compensation under Section 166, which requires proving negligence.”
Decision of the Court
1. Negligence Not Required: The court reaffirmed that Section 163-A claims are decided solely on the basis of the vehicle’s use, and not on proof of negligence. This means victims do not have to prove who was at fault.
2. Medical Expenses: The court upheld the tribunal’s decision to award medical expenses based on actual costs incurred, rather than limiting them to ₹15,000 as prescribed in the Second Schedule of the MV Act.
3. Exclusive Remedy Under Section 163-A: The bench held that once a claimant chooses to seek compensation under Section 163-A, they cannot later file a separate claim under Section 166.
