Bombay High Court
SUMAN SIYARAM PARIKversusDIGUMBAR LAXMAN TAWARE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the MACT’s order rejecting the Section 163A claim and restored the application for fresh adjudication in view of the Supreme Court’s later ruling on negligence.
Summary
The appellant challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order that rejected a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the deceased was at fault. The Supreme Court’s decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar (2019) clarified that negligence cannot be examined under Section 163, a ruling that was unavailable when the MACT decided the case. The High Court accepted the parties’ request to reconsider the matter in light of the later Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the Court quashed the MACT’s order dated 12 April 2016 and restored the original application for fresh adjudication, keeping all contentions open. The appellant was directed to appear before the MACT for scheduling a hearing, and the appeal was disposed accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the MACT erred in rejecting the claim under Section 163A on the basis that the deceased was at fault.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, which precludes examination of negligence under Section 163, should be applied retrospectively to the MACT order.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 163, 163A
Subjects
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- Section 163A
- Negligence
- Quash
- Fresh adjudication
- Supreme Court precedent
- Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:14035
Sayyed 19-FA.274.2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.274 OF 2017
Suman Siyaram Parik ...Appellant
Versus
Digumbar Laxman Taware & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Sanjay Ghaisas for the Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Raje for Respondent No.2.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 24 MARCH 2026
P.C.:
1. This appeal is filed by the original applicant challenging the
order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Raigad – Alibag,
whereby the application came to be rejected solely on the ground that
the deceased was at fault though the application was made under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The impugned order was
passed on 12 April 2016.
2. Post the impugned order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar &
Anr.1 has held that under Section 163, the issue of negligence cannot be
gone into. This decision was not available when the impugned order
was passed. Therefore, it is the request of both the parties that this
matter be remanded back to decide afresh by considering all the
decisions on this issue, and if found eligible to award compensation in
accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.2.
1 (2019) 12 SCC 398
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
1 of 2
Sayyed 19-FA.274.2017.doc
3. I find that the suggestion made by both the counsel is
reasonable since decision in the case of Sunil Kumar & Anr. (supra) was
not available at the time when the MACT decided the matter. Therefore,
in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 12 April 2016 is
quashed and the original application is restored back to the file of the
MACT to be adjudicated afresh.
4. All the contentions of all the parties on all the issues are kept
open.
5. The appellant to appear before the MACT on 20 April 2026 at
11:00 a.m. so that the MACT can fix up the date for hearing. If any
application is made for expediting the hearing then the same may be
considered by the MACT.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2026 11:17:59 2 of 2
Checking your session…