National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Sonia and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The Appellant has impugned the Award dated 10.11.2009 whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,57,000/- along with interest had been awarded in favour of the claimants. The primary ground for contesting this appeal is that the deceased had not died as a result of "an accident"; he was traveling in a bus; as per the version of the driver of the bus he had tried to molest a female passenger; when the other passengers joined to save the female passenger the deceased to save himself jumped out of the moving bus as a result of which he sustained injuries pursuant to which he had died. Contention before this Court is that the deceased himself was negligent; he had died because of his own fault. The word "accident" as defined by Black''s Law Dictionary has been highlighted to support the submission that such an incident is not an accident; the victim himself was guilty of an act for which his legal heirs deserve No. compensation; award is liable to be set aside on this ground.

Arguments have been refuted.

Admittedly present claim petition had been filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act"). Section 163A is based on the principle of No. fault liability. Time and again the Apex Court has reaffirmed that compensation claimed and awarded under this provision is on a structured formula as contained in the Second Schedule of the Act. The claimants do not have to prove any fault or negligence on the part of the driver before getting an award for compensation; in fact this provision starts with a non-obstante clause. This has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 2107 Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Section 163A of the M.V. Act presupposes compensation to be awarded where the accident arises out of the use of the motor vehicle. In the instant case the evidence on record which includes the FIR which has been registered pursuant to the DD entry recorded to the effect that the deceased had jumped out of the moving bus; he was teasing some girl; the FIR has further noted that Investigating Officer did not find any eye-witness present at the spot; the victim i.e. the girl who had been teased by the deceased was also not available. The Tribunal had noted these facts and had awarded compensation keeping in view the intent and the purpose of the provisions of Section 163A of the MV Act.

This provision has been inserted into statute w.e.f. 1994 to give compensation to the claimant, or an injured where the victim was not earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum; the intent and purpose being that the claimant should be given compensation as early as possible without there being any long or ordained trial. The word "accident" has been defined in Black''s Law Dictionary as an unforeseen event; something which is unexpected or unusual. Incident as described clearly shows that the deceased had died in an unforeseen event; he had jumped out of a moving bus. Ingredients of Section 163A of the M.V. Act stood established.

Argument of the Appellant is without any merit. It is discarded. Award calls for No. interference.

At this stage learned Counsel for the Respondents states that in the memo of parties the name of Respondent No. 2 has been wrongly depicted as Kumari Karan; whereas he is Kumar Karan; this is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Respondent No. 2 is also present in person. His identity has been verified. Kumari Karan accordingly be read as Kumar Karan in the memo of parties.

Appeal is disposed of.