Summary
The High Court wrongly dismissed a section 163A motor-accident claim for failure to establish another person’s negligent driving and on driving-licence issues expressly given up before the Tribunal. The insurer was not permitted to raise a new Rs.1,00,000 liability-cap argument for the first time in the Supreme Court. The Tribunal’s award was restored with the multiplier corrected from 8 to 17 for the 28-year-old deceased, retaining its interest terms.
Issues
- Whether a section 163A claimant had to establish another driver’s negligence.
- Whether abandoned licence issues or a newly raised liability cap justified denial.
- Which multiplier should govern compensation.
Provisions considered
- Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The structured-formula claim did not require pleading or proof of wrongful act, negligence or default. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Held
- Section 163A did not require the claimant to establish that someone else drove rashly and negligently and thereby caused the death. The High Court erred in denying the claim on that premise. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12, 13)
- The driving-licence issues had expressly not been pressed before the Tribunal. The High Court could not use them to disentitle the claimant. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14)
- The asserted Rs.1,00,000 maximum liability had not been raised in any court below. The insurer was not allowed to raise it for the first time at this stage; its merits were not adjudicated. (¶ 15)
- The multiplier based on the claimant’s age was a glaring error. It was corrected from 8 to 17 for the deceased aged 28, with the Tribunal’s remaining computation and interest terms retained. Payment was required within three months. (¶¶ 9, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; Tribunal award restored with multiplier 17 replacing 8 and existing interest retained. Insurer to pay the resulting amount within three months.