Holding

Under Section 163A the claimant need not plead negligence or that the deceased was the driver, and the correct multiplier is 17, making the insurer liable for the corrected amount.

Summary

On 18 March 2004 the son of the claimant, who was a pillion rider, died in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held the insurer liable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded Rs.1.99 lakh with interest, using a multiplier of 8 based on the claimant's age. The High Court set aside the award, insisting that the claimant must prove the deceased was the driver, had a valid licence and that the insurer’s liability was limited to Rs.1 lakh. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 163A the claimant need not plead or establish negligence or that the deceased was the driver, and that the multiplier should be 17, not 8. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing the insurer to pay the corrected compensation amount with interest.

Issues considered

Whether a claimant under Section 163A must prove negligence or that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle.
Whether the multiplier for compensation should be 8 or 17 in the present facts.
Whether the statutory ceiling of Rs.1 lakh under Section 163A applies to this claim.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 163Ano‑fault liabilitycompensation multiplierpillion ridermotor accident claims tribunalinsurance liability

Judgment

868 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 868 [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI
v.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 2020)
B JUNE 08, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.163A – Son of the claimant,
allegedly a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident – MACT held
C the insurance company liable to pay Rs.1.99 lakhs with 6% interest
thereon – Judgment set aside by High Court – Held: Claimant need
not plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim
was made, was due to any negligence or default of the owner of the
vehicle or of any other person – Thus, it is not relevant that the
person insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have
D been riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in
the death of the person driving the vehicle – High Court wrong in
stating that it was necessary u/s.163A to prove that somebody else
was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which,
the death of the victim would take place – Amount mentioned in
E MACT’s judgment to be paid with the correction that the multiplier
instead of being 8 is now 17 – Interest also remains the same –
Insurance company to pay the amount due to the claimant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The claimant need not plead or establish that the
F death in respect of which the claim was made, was due to any
negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other
person. (emphasis supplied). It is not relevant that the person
insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been
riding with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the
death of the person driving the vehicle. The High Court is clearly
G
wrong in stating that it was necessary under Section 163A to prove
that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently,
as a result of which, the death of the victim would take place.
[Paras 12, 13][872-F-H; 873-A]

H
868
869

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2527 A
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.12.2016 of the High Court
of Uttrakhand at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 10 of 2010.
N. K. Sahoo, Naresh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
B
Anshum Jain, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
C
1. Leave granted.
2. On 18.03.2004, an incident took place, by which the son of the
claimant, who allegedly was a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to
as ‘MACT’) after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that D
the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
No. 2, who was the owner of the motor vehicle and who was driving the
aforesaid motor vehicle. The victim was aged 28 years. Coming to the
conclusion that a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month would be adequate,
with a deduction of one-third, and taking the multiplier as 8 dependant
upon the claimant’s age, the MACT finally held the insurance company E
liable to pay a total of Rs. 1.99 lakhs + 6 per cent interest thereon.
3. In the appeal filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand, by
the impugned order dated 28.12.2016, the High Court held that since the
insurance company denied that the deceased was only a pillion rider and
stated that he was, in fact, driving the vehicle himself; also since the F
claimant was not present at the spot; and since Shri Virender Bijalwan,
respondent No. 2, who ought to have been called as he was the only
surviving eye witness, not being called as a witness, therefore, proved
fatal to the claim, as a result of which, the petition under Section 163A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would have to be dismissed. Further, the
G
High Court also held that nothing was brought on record to show that
the deceased was having a valid driving license. In this view of the
matter, the appeal was allowed and the judgment passed by the MACT
was set aside.

H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A 4. Shri N. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, has argued that the petition being filed under Section 163A, it
is clear that the liability is ‘no fault’, as a result of which, it is not necessary
to prove the negligence or any rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver of the vehicle. He further argued that the multiplier of 8 is ex-
B facie incorrect since it was taken on the basis of the claimant’s age and
not the victim’s age, stating that since the victim was only 28 years old,
the multiplier should have been 17. He also argued that the High Court
was wrong in placing the burden on the claimant, when MACT has held
that, based on the examination and cross examination of the claimant,
the facts could be elicited. Further, the validity of the driving licence
C under Issues Nos. 2 and 3, was given up by the insurance company but
taken into account by the High Court.
5. Shri Anshum Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company, reiterated the High Court’s judgment and further
argued that no fault liability under Section 163A is limited to Rs.1 lakh.
D At the relevant time, therefore, even if we were to uphold the MACT’s
judgment, the maximum that can be awarded on the facts of this case is
Rs.1 lakh.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we may only
extract the order of the MACT as follows:
E “13. P.W. 1 Smt. Chandra Kanta Tiwari was cross-examined at
length on behalf of O.P. No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company and none
appeared to cross-examine her on behalf of the O.P. No. 1.
Whatever cross-examination has been made on behalf of O.P.
No. 2, it has again been proved that the deceased was the pillion
F rider and O.P. No. 1 was driving the ill- fated vehicle at the time
of accident in a rash and negligent manner due to which he
received grievous injuries which resulted into his death on the
spot.
14. It will be relevant to mention here that no controverting evidence
G on this issue or on issue no. 2 has been adduced by any of the
opposite parties though they have made the pleadings otherwise
in their written statement hence it has not been proved on record
by any of the opposite parties that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was driving the vehicle, it is also relevant to mention
here that according to written statement of O.P. No. 1, he himself
H
871

sustained injuries in this accident and he has also admitted the A
date, time and place of the accident. Therefore, it was legally
incumbent upon him to prove his case before the Tribunal as he
was the best person to make clear how this accident occurred but
as no evidence has been adduced by the O.P. No. 1 in this regard,
therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced
B
on behalf of the claimants by way of P.W.1.
15. Admittedly this petition has been moved u/s. 163A of the M.V.
Act, therefore, legally the claimants are not supposed to prove
the rash and negligent act of driving by O.P. No. 1 and in such a
petition legally, the claimants are not required even to plead or
establish that the death, in respect of which the claim has been C
made, was due to any wrongly act or negligence or default of the
owner driver of the vehicle or any other person and in such a
petition, the owner of the vehicle or the authorised insurer is legally
liable to make the payment of compensation.”
7. So far as issues 3 and 4 are concerned, they read as follows: D

“3. Whether at the time of accident the deceased was not having
a valid driving license?
4. Whether at the time of accident the OP No. 1 was not having
a valid driving license?” E
8. The Tribunal then records in paragraph 17 that both the opposite
parties did not press these issues during arguments.
9. Finally, given that the deceased was aged 28 years and that
income was not proved, income was taken to be Rs.36,000/- per annum
minus one-third, which made it Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Multiplier F
was taken to be 8, keeping in view the old age of the claimant and
accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- was arrived at. In addition thereto,
Rs.2000/- was given as funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- as loss of consortium,
making it a total of Rs.1,99,000/- together with simple interest at the rate
of 6 per cent per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the
G
claim petition up to the date of actual payment.
10. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal
of the insurance company stating that the claimant, not being an eye
witness, could not possibly give evidence as to the accident that took
place, as a result of which, the Section 163A petition would have to be
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A dismissed. Also, nothing was brought on record to show that the deceased
was having a valid driving license. This would also, therefore, take the
case outside the insurance policy, as a result of which, the appeal would
deserve to be allowed on this ground also.
11. Section 163A reads as follows:
B 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 authorised
C 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 or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent
D 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
E 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 Gazette, from time to time
F amend the Second Schedule.
12. A perusal of this provision would show that Shri Sahoo is
correct in stating that the claimant need not plead or establish that the
death in respect of which the claim was made, was due to any negligence
or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person.
G (emphasis supplied)
13. In this view of the matter, it is not relevant that the person
insured must be the driver of the vehicle but may well have been riding
with somebody else driving a vehicle which resulted in the death of the
person driving the vehicle. The High Court, therefore, is clearly wrong
H
CHANDRAKANTA TIWARI v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE 873
COMPANY LTD. & ANR. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

in stating that it was necessary under Section 163A to prove that A
somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result
of which, the death of the victim would take place.
14. Further, it is also clear, as has been pointed out hereinabove,
that so far as the driving licence aspect of the case is concerned, it was
squarely given up by the insurance company before the MACT, but then B
utilised by the High Court to disentitle the claimant to relief. On this
ground also, the High Court is incorrect.
15. Coming to the argument based on the maximum liability being
Rs.1 lakh, this argument was never taken before in all the courts below,
as a result of which, we do not allow the insurance company to take up C
the point for the first time before us at this stage.
16. We would have restored the MACT’s judgment as it stands
but for the fact that there is a glaring mistake in the multiplier, as has
been pointed out by Shri Sahoo. The amount that will be paid will now be
the amount mentioned in the MACT’s judgment with the correction that D
the multiplier instead of being 8 is now 17. The interest figure also remains
the same. As a result, the appeal stands allowed. The insurance company
is to pay the amount due to the claimant as per our judgment within a
period of three months from today.

E

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

F

G

H