Summary
A reference questioned whether an insurer could resist a structured-formula motor accident claim under Section 163A by alleging the victim’s negligence. The Court answered that such a defence is unavailable, leaving the appeal for later disposal after resolution of the separately pending Section 170 reference.
Issues
- Whether an insurer can raise negligence of the victim as a defence to a claim under Section 163A.
- Whether the separate Section 170 issue should be decided in this reference.
Held
- Compensation under Section 163A is a final award on the structured formula, without proof of the driver’s or owner’s negligence. Its purpose is prompt final compensation rather than prolonged adjudication of fault. (¶ 5–8)
- Although Section 163A lacks the express exclusion found in Section 140(4), permitting the insurer to plead the victim’s negligence would defeat its legislative purpose and equate it with fault-based Section 166 proceedings. That defence is unavailable. The contrary reasoning in Sinitha was not accepted. (¶¶ 3, 8–9)
- The Section 170 question was already referred to a larger Bench in Shila Datta and was left unanswered here. Final disposal of the appeal was deferred until that opinion; meanwhile 50% of compensation deposited in the Registry under the earlier order was directed to be released on due identification. (¶¶ 2, 10–11)
Result
Reference answered: the insurer cannot defend a Section 163A claim by alleging the victim’s negligence. Appeal to be listed for disposal after the larger-Bench opinion on Section 170; 50% of the deposited compensation ordered released on due identification.