New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Daulat Rambhau Sidam and Another

Bhangale A.P., J.—This appeal is directed against order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in MACP No. 75 of 2007 granting interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to Respondent No. 1 towards no fault liability.

Learned Counsel for Appellant Insurance Company contends that deceased was gratuitous and unauthorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and, therefore, Appellant is not liable to cover any risk muchless by way of interim compensation.

The principles governing proceedings u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are different than applicable in the proceedings u/s 140 of the Act towards no fault liability. It has social and beneficial object to provide urgent relief of compensation to victims of motor vehicle accident in cases of death or permanent disablement of victims and, therefore, independent of the other proceedings u/s 166 of the Act. The avowed intention of the legislature behind introducing liability without fault u/s 140 (old Section 92-A) is to provide expeditious monetary assistance to seriously injured victim or dependents of deceased victim in an accident caused by motor vehicle. The words are unambiguous, clear and must be given their natural effect to pass interim award.

The principle of "no fault liability" is carved out as an exception to confer timely or prompt benefit to victims of motor vehicle accidents. It would be instructive to note that victims cannot be made to wait for outcome of protracted adjudicatory process. u/s 140 of the said Act, the Legislature has contemplated liability without fault, in any case, resulting into an accident arising from the use of the mechanically-propelled motor vehicle. The owner of the motor vehicle is primarily liable to pay compensation u/s 140 of the said Act. The compensation sum is statutorily fixed at Rs. 50,000/- payable to dependents of victim if victim had died in the accident and at Rs. 25,000/- if victim suffered permanent disablement. The claimant applying u/s 140 of the Act need not plead and establish that such accident had occurred due to any wrongful act/neglect or default on the part of owner of motor vehicle or any other person. Section 140(4) of the Act clarifies that claim u/s 140 shall not be defeated on account of wrongful act/neglect or default of victim in the incident of accident. Section 140 of the Act does not require adducing proof of negligence and rashness on the part of driver or owner of the offending vehicle. It is enough to prima facie establish that the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle. In the present case, it is not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured with Appellant Insurance Company. It is always open for the insurer to recover the amount paid at interim stage on account of "no fault liability" u/s 140 of the Act from the owner and/or driver of the offending motor'' vehicle if ultimately the insurer is held not liable to pay compensation as a result of main petition u/s 166 of the Act.

Thus, there is rib merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with costs.