Santosh Kumar vs Alok Mishra & Ors

R.K.Gauba, J

The accident claim case (Petition No. 379/2006) instituted on 6.09.2006 by the appellant was initially filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 but was converted into one seeking compensation on the principle of ‘fault liability’ under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at

the instance of the claimant (appellant). The inquiry resulted in the impugned judgment being passed on 09.03.2009 holding that the appellant had failed

to prove the fault on the part of the first respondent, described as driver of Maruti car bearing No. DL-2CAA-9287.

The first and second respondents though served have chosen not to appear or participate in the hearing on the appeal. The third respondent, the

insurer of the car, has appeared through counsel.

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that since he has enough evidence to substantiate the use of the car in question on the

public road and the accident involving the said vehicle resulting in permanent disability, he may be allowed to press it before the Tribunal on the

principle of ‘no fault liability’ under the structured formula in terms of Section 163-A, Motors Vehicle Act, 1988. The counsel for the insurer on

being asked submitted that he leaves the matter to the discretion of the court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is granted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The claim petition of the appellant shall be

treated as one presented and pressed under Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and inquired into accordingly by the Tribunal.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings in above light on 10th November, 2017.

The tribunal’s record shall be returned forthwith with copy of this judgment.

The appeal is disposed of.