National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt.Sonia & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3651 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 01.8.2011


+      MAC APPEAL No.63/2010 & CM No.2066/2010



NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD............Appellant
                     Through: Mr.Manoj Ranjan Sinha,
                              Advocate.

                   Versus

SMT.SONIA & ORS.                           ..........Respondents.
                         Through:    Mr.Sudhansu Tomar, Advocate
                                     for R-1 and R-2.
                                     Mr.Nirupam        Prabhakar,
                                     Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant has impugned the Award dated 10.11.2009

whereby the compensation in the sum of `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 travelling 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.

2. Arguments have been refuted.

3. Admittedly present claim petition had been filed under

Section 163 A 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 Supreme Court 2107 Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors.

vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

4. 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.

5. 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 `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 163 A of the M.V.Act stood

established.

6. Argument of the appellant is without any merit. It is

discarded. Award calls for no interference.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Appeal is disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 01, 2011 nandan