Summary
The High Court denied a deceased driver’s parents compensation under Section 163-A on the ground that he had caused the accident. Applying Sunil Kumar, the Supreme Court held that the insurer could not use the victim’s negligence as a defence to this structured-formula claim and restored the Tribunal’s award.
Issues
- Whether the insurer could defeat a Section 163-A claim by alleging that the deceased driver was negligent.
Provisions considered
- Section 163-A, as applicable, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The structured-formula proceeding did not permit an insurer’s defence of negligence by the victim; importing that defence would defeat the provision’s no-fault purpose. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Held
- Permitting a negligence defence would assimilate a Section 163-A proceeding to a fault-based Section 166 claim and contradict the statutory object of final structured-formula compensation within a limited time. The victim’s negligence therefore could not defeat this claim. (¶ 5)
- The High Court’s order absolving the insurer on the deceased driver’s alleged responsibility was set aside, restoring the Tribunal’s award to his parents. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Tribunal’s award of Rs.4,60,800 with nine per cent annual interest restored. No costs.