In one of its recent judgement, the Supreme Court has observed that a claim presented under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself.
The judgement came in Ramkhiladi & Anr v The United India Insurance Company & Anr.
CASE BACKGROUND
The appellants here are the legal heirs of the deceased who had filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which the deceased drove himself.
In the Tribunal Court, the case was allowed on the ground that the deceased was in the employment of the owner of the vehicle which was driven by him.
The second reason that the Court provided was that in an application under Section 163A of the Act, the negligence isn't required to be established and proved and it is enough to establish and prove that the deceased has died in a vehicular accident and while driving a vehicle.
The appellants herein filed an appeal before the Top Court against the Rajasthan High Court judgement in which it was held:
The Apex Court after listening to the agruements agreed with the High Court's verdict.
The Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah observed on this note that the claimants (appellants herein) ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the 24 offending vehicles.
The bench noted the judgment in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 wherein it was held that the owner of the vehicle or his legal representatives or the borrower of the vehicle cannot raise a claim under Section 163A of the Act for an accident in which there was no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle.
It stated:
It was held that as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, it was right on behalf of the High Court to hold that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle.
The judgement was delivered by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah on 07-01-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :