Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16507 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 182
Decided on: 08.11.2021
Present:
Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Successors of deceased of offending vehicle – Right of -- Ground that successors of the tortfeasor cannot be granted any compensation -- Deceased person was the driver of the offending Scorpio vehicle -- Held, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be taken as a defence by the Insurance Company in a claim petition filed u/s 163-A of the said Act.
(Para 3-7)
Cases referred:
1. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha and others, 2012(1) RCR(Civil) 205.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another, 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 680.
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) --
CM-8928-CII-2021
1. Allowed as prayed for. Exemption sought for is granted.
CM-8929-CII-2021
2. Allowed as prayed for. Delay of 22 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO No.1080 of 2021 (O&M)
3. This appeal has been filed challenging Award dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby the claim of the heirs of the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been allowed. The ground taken is that successors of the tortfeasor cannot be granted any compensation.
4. It has been submitted that the deceased person was the driver of the offending Scorpio vehicle. The said driver has been found negligent in driving the vehicle and causing death of some of the occupants thereof by causing an accident. Thus, his heirs would not be entitled to claim any compensation. The Tribunal has erred in allowing their claim petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited judgments titled as 'National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sinitha and others' 2012(1) RCR(Civil) 205 and 'United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another' 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 680.
6. The judgment in Sinitha (supra) supports the argument of learned counsel for the appellant whereas the judgment in Sunil Kumar (supra) is against him. Judgment in Sunil Kumar (supra) is by Three-Judges Bench and is a later decision and thus, the same will prevail.
7. According to the said judgment, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be taken as a defence by the Insurance Company in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the said Act.
8. Thus, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
********