Bhimsha vs Nirmalasingh

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

The appellant was said to be a driver employed in a truck and as a result of an accident, whereby the truck had crashed into a tree, he suffered grievous injuries. It is in that background that he laid a claim for compensation u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the "MV Act", for brevity) and the same has been dismissed on the footing that a claim u/s 163A will not lie since the appellant was employed as a driver in that vehicle, which had met with an accident. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present appeal.

As seen from a reading of Section 163A of the MV Act, a petition u/s 163A of the MV Act would lie only by a third-party involved in an accident since the liability would have to be met by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer if the vehicle is insured. Since the appellant was employed as a driver in the vehicle that met with an accident, his claim can only lie under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not under Sections 163A or 166 of the MV Act. Therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition by the driver cannot be faulted. It is for the appellant therefore, to work out his remedies elsewhere.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any right available to the appellant to seek remedies elsewhere.