AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailash Gambhir, J.—In all these three appeals, common question of law is involved, and therefore, all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. The question raised by the appellant insurance company is as to whether the petition filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be maintained even in a case where no death or permanent disablement has resulted due to the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
In all the three cases, the respondents claimants had suffered simple injuries and none of the respondents had suffered any kind of permanent disablement as a result of the accident. I, therefore, find merit in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that unless permanent disablement or death results due to the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be maintained. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said provision hereunder:
163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs for the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.� For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazatte, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.
A cursory glance on the said provision would show that the said provision was brought on the Statute Book with a view to deal with particular situations unlike Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which petition can be filed for any kind of injury suffered by the victim of the accident or on account of death of the victim. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly postulates that the authorized insurer can be held liable to pay compensation amount without even proving factum of negligence but however restricted to those cases where the accident has resulted into death or permanent disablement of a victim and not in all cases of injuries suffered by the victims.
The explanation appended to the said Section 163-A further clarifies that for the purposes of the said sub-section, permanent disability shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen''s Compensation Act 1923. Cases of injury are also not covered within the ambit and scope of the Schedule of the Workmen Compensation Act, which categorizes various cases under the heading of ''Permanent Disability''.
Counsel appearing for respondent has not disputed this fact that in none of these cases, the victim has suffered any kind of permanent disablement due to the accident arisen out of use of motor vehicle involved in the accident.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no option but to allow the present appeal since the injuries suffered by the respondents claimants are not covered within the scope and ambit of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In the light of the above discussion, the impugned orders appealed herein in all the three appeals are set aside.