Sikkim High Court: No Need to Prove Wrongful Act of Vehicle Owner in Claims Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act

Post By 24law
January 2, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Sikkim High Court has held that claimants seeking compensation under Section 163A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not required to plead or prove that the death occurred due to the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the vehicle owner. The decision came while dismissing an appeal by the National Insurance Company challenging the award of ₹14,40,000 to the claimant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gangtok.

Case Background

The case pertained to a tragic accident on September 18, 2011, involving a Maruti Suzuki taxi driven by Bikash Pradhan. The taxi, carrying multiple passengers, including Phurba Sherpa—the father of the claimant—was hit by boulders that rolled down a hillside during an earthquake. The impact caused the vehicle to veer off the road and plunge into a river. Except for one passenger, all others were swept away by the river's strong current.

Eleven years after the accident, the bodies of the deceased, including Phurba Sherpa, remained unrecovered, and their deaths were presumed. The deceased’s son, Nim Tshering Sherpa (Respondent No.1), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act before the MACT, Gangtok, seeking compensation for his father’s death.

The claimant alleged that the accident was caused by the driver’s inability to control the vehicle, which was traveling at high speed when the earthquake struck. However, the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No.2) argued that the vehicle was mechanically fit, properly maintained, and driven by a qualified driver with a valid license.

Contentions by the Insurance Company

The National Insurance Company, the appellant in the case, denied liability, contending that:

Rash and negligent driving by the driver was not proved.
The claimant lacked a death certificate to establish the deceased’s death.
The case should have been filed under Section 163A of the MV Act, rather than under Section 166.

MACT’s Decision

The MACT, in its judgment dated October 17, 2023, awarded ₹14,40,000 as compensation to the claimant. The tribunal held that in cases like this, proving negligence is not mandatory, and strict procedural rules do not apply. It concluded that there was prima facie evidence of rash and negligent driving by the driver, which contributed to the accident. The tribunal computed the compensation under various heads, including loss of earning, love and affection, and litigation costs, with an annual interest of 10% on the amount from the date of filing the claim.

Appeal Before the High Court

The insurance company challenged the MACT’s award, arguing that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving and that the MACT erred in not dismissing the claim. It further asserted that the case should have been filed under Section 163A, instead of Section 166.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the appeal is not maintainable as no steps were taken by the Appellant under Section 170 of the MV Act, before the MACT to enable it to assail the judgment of the MACT on all grounds as raised herein. It was argued that in the absence of an order under Section 170 of the Act, the appeal is to be confined to the statutory defences as provided under Section 149(2) of the MV Act.

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai dismissed the appeal and made significant observations:

The court reiterated that claimants under Section 163A(1) are not required to plead or prove that the death occurred due to the wrongful act or neglect of the vehicle owner.
The court rejected the insurance company’s argument of vis major, citing Supreme Court rulings that new grounds not raised before the MACT cannot be introduced in appeal.
The court noted that the insurance company did not seek permission under Section 170, limiting its grounds of appeal to those prescribed under Section 149(2).
The court emphasized that the MV Act aims to protect accident victims and their dependents, ensuring they receive due compensation without unnecessary procedural hurdles.

"In view of the detailed discussions that have emanated hereinabove, I have reached a finding that the Appeal is not maintainable in the absence of a specific Order of the MACT under Section 170 of the MV Act, 1988, allowing the Appellant to raise all grounds in Appeal,” the Court said dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: National Insurance Company Limited v. Nim Tshering Sherpa & Another