UNITED LNDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

                           (2017] I l S.C.R. 130


A                UNITED lNDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                     v.
                         SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 9694of2013)
B                        NOVEMBER 24, 20 l 7
          [RANJAN GOGOi, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
                          NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
          Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.163A - Compensation - Claim
  proceedings u/s. l 63A - Defence/plea by tile insurer of negligence
c on the part of the driver/owner of tile vehicle - Held: It is not open
  for the insurer to raise the defence/plea of negligence - Grant of
  compensation u/s. 163-A on the basis of the stmctured formula is in
  tile nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is
  required to be made without any requirement of any proof of
  negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the
D
   l1cciclent.
          Adjourning the matter, the Court
        HELD: It is clear that grant of compensation under Section
  163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the basis of the
E structured formula is in the nature of u final award and the
  adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any
  requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the
  vehiclc(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by
  Section I 63A(2). Though the said section of the Act docs not
  specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on
F
  the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4),
  to permit such defence to he introduced by the Insurer and/or to
  understand the provisions of Section l63A of the Act to he
  contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very
  legislative object behind introduction of Section l63A of the Act,
G namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the
  basis of the strnctured formula to overcome situations where the
  claim of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an
  unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act
  to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would

H
                                  130
  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SUNIL KUMAR                       131
                     &ANR.

be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A Of the Act at par          A
with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would
not only be selt~contradictory but also defeat the very legislative
intention. Thus, in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it
is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on
the part of the victim. As the final disposal of the appeal may take   B
some time, 50% of the compensation that is presently lying in
dcpo.sit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated 24-02-2012
should be released to the claimant on due identification. (Paras
8, 9, 11)[135-B-E; G]
      National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and
      others (2012) 2 SCC 356 : [20U] 16 SCR 166; United               c
      India Insurance Company Limited v. Shila Datta and
      others (2011) lO SCC 509: (2011) 14 SCR 763; Deepa/
      Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance
      Co. Ltd.. Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385; Oriental Insurance
      Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai v. Koda/a and other (2001) 5             D
      SCC 175 : )2001] 2 SCR 999 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference

[2011] 1.6 SCR 166             referred to             Para l
                                                                       E
[2011] 14 SCR 763              referred to             Para 2

(2004) s sec 385               referred lo             Paras

[2001) 2 SCR 999               referred to             Para 6
                                                                       F
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694
of2013.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2011 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 900 of201 I.
     Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. E. Enatoli Serna (for Mis. Law             G
Associates), Advs. for the Appellant.
       Ajay KumarTalesarn,Amit Singh Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi, Vipin Nair,
P. B. Surcsh, Abbay Pratap Singh, Ad vs. for the Respondents.

                                                                       H
132             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] l 1 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. Unable to agree with the reasoning
      and the conclusion of a two judge bench of this Court in National
      Insurance Comvany Limited vs. Sinitha a11d others' a coordinate
      bench of this Court by order dated 29'" October, 2013 has referred the
B     instant matter fem a resolution of what appears to be the following question
      oflaw.
             "Whether in a claim proceeding under Section 163 A of the Motor
             Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") it is
             open for the Insurer to raise the defence/pica of negligence?"
c            2. A second question as to what would be the true scope and
      meaning of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Act more
      specifically as set out in Queries (iii) to (v) in paragraph 10 of the report
      of United India /11sura11ce Comoany Limited versus Shila Datta and
      others', also arises. However, the aforesaid Question stands referred
      to a Larger Bench in Shila Datta(supra) itself. We are told that answers
D     to the questions referred are awaited. In view of the above, we would
      be required to answer only the first question arising in the reference
      which has been set out herein above.
             3. In Si11itha's case (supra), a two judge bench of this Court
      understood the scope of Section l 63A of the Actto be enabling an Insurer
E     to raise the defence of negligence to counter a claim for compensation.
      The principal basis on which the conclusion in Sinitha's case (supra)
      was reached and recorded is the absence of a provision similar to sub-
      section (4) of Section 140 of the Act in Section l63A of the Act. Such
      absence has been understood by the Bench to be a manifestation of a
      clear legislative intention that unlike in a proceeding under Section 140
F
      of the Act where the defence of the Insurer based on negligence is shut
      out, the same is not be the position in a proceeding under Section 163A
      of the Act.
           4. We have considered the matter and have heard the learned
      counsels for the parties.
G
              5. In Deevat Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India
      /11s11ra11ce Co. Ltd., Barodd' the issue before a three judge bench of

       '(2012) 2 sec 356
      '(2011 l 10 sec 509
H     '12004) 5 sec 385
  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SUNIL KUMAR                               133
             & ANR. [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

this Court was with regard to the mutual exclusiveness of the provisions A
of Section I 63A and Section 166 of the Act. While dealing with the said
question, this Court had the occasion to go into the reasons and objects
for the incorporation of Section 140 and l 63A of the Act which came in
by subsequent amendments, details of which are being noted separately
herein below. The Bench also took the view that while Section 140 of
                                                                            B
the Act deals with cases of interim compensation leaving it open for the
claimant to agitate for final compensation by resort to the provisions of
Section 166 of the Act, Section 163A of the Act provides for award of
final compensation on a structured formula following the provisions of
Second Schedule appended to the Act. Both Sections i.e. Sections 140
and l 63A are based on the concept of 'no fault liability' and have been c
enacted as measures of social security. It was further noted that in a
proceeding under Section J63A of the Act the Tribunal may be required
to adjudicate upon various disputed questions like age, income, etc, unlike
 in a proceeding under Section 140 of the Act.

       6. Deepal Girishbhai Son i's case (supra), in fact, arose out of a      D
reference made for a decision on the correctness of the view expressed
in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a and other'
that determination of compensation in a proceeding under Section 163A
of the Act is final and further proceedings under Section 166 of the Act
is barred. The opinion rendered in Hansra/bhai V. Koda/a (supra)
                                                                               E
contains an elaborate recapitulation of the reasons behind the enactment
of Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act (i.e. Motor Vehicles Act. 1939)
(corresponding to Sections 140 to 144 of the present Act) introducing
for the first time the concept of 'no fault liability' in departure from the
usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence
on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming        F
any compensation for death or permanent disablement caused on account
of a motor vehicle accident. In the said report, there is a reference to the
deli.berations of the Committee constituted to review the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and .the suggestions of the Transport
Development Council on th\' basis ofwhich .the draf\ "sill of 1994 was
                                                                               G
enacted, iliter alia, to provide for:



'(2001) s sec 175
                                                                               H
                                                                     •


134            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] l l S.C.R.


A           "(h) increase in the amount of compensation to the victims ofhit-
            and-run cases;

            (k) a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation
            to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more
            liberal and rational."
B
             7. As observed in Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a (supra) one of the
      suggestions made by the Transport Development Council was "to provide
      adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into
      long drawn procedure." As a sequel to the recommendations made by
c     the Committee and the Council. Section 140 was enacted in the present
      Act in place of Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act. Compensation payable
      thereunder, as under the repealed provisions, continued to be on the
      basis of no fault liability though at an enhanced rate which was further
      enhanced by subsequent amendments. Sections 140 and 141 of the
      present Act makes it clear that compensation payable thereunder does
D
      not foreclose the liability to pay or the right to receive compensation
      under any other provision of the Act or any other law in force except
      compensation awarded under Section l 63A of the Act. Compensation
      under Section 140 of the Act was thus understood to be in the nature of
      an interim payment pending the final award under Section 166 of the
E     Act. Sectior) 163-A, on the other hand, was introduced in the New Act
      for the first time to remedy the situation where determination of final
      compensation on fault basis under Section 166 of the Act was
      progressively getting protracted. The Legislative intent and purpose was
      to provide for payment of final compensation to a class of claimants
      (whose income was below Rs.40,000/- per annum) on the basis of a
F
      structured formula without any reference to fault liability. In fact, in
      Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a (supra) the bench had occasion to observe
      that:

            "Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault,
G           on the principle of social justice as a social security measure
            because of ever-increasing motor vehicle accidents in a fast-
            moving society. Further, the law before insertion of Section 163-
            A was giving limited benefit to the extent provided under Section


H
   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SUNIL KUMAR                            135
              & ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

       J40 for no- fa ult liability and determination of compensation amount A
       on fault liability was taking a Jong time. That mischief is sought to
       be remedied by introducing Section 163-A and the disease of delay
     · is sought to be cured to a large extent by affording benefit to the
       victims on structured-formula basis. Further, if the question of
       determining compensation on fault liability is kept alive it would
                                                                             B
       result in additional litigation and complications in case claimants
       fail to establish liability of the owner of the defaulting vehicles."

       8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation
under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is
in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required c
to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made
explicit by Section l 63A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act
does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on
the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to D
permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand
the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such
situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction
 of Section l 63AoftheAct, namely, final compensation within a limited ·
time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations
 where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was ·E
 taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163Aofthe
 Act to permit the Insurer to rai~e the defence of negligence ;would be to
 bring a proceeding under Section l 63A of the Act at par with the
 prnceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self.
 contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
                                                                               F

          9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising_by.
holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open
for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the
vi(,'lim.
                                                                              G
      I 0. The appeal will now be listed before regular Bench for disposal
on merits, after the opinion of the larger Bench on the true scope and
meaning of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the Moto~ Vehicles
Act, 1939 is rendered.
                                                                              H
136                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] ll S.C.R.



A            11. As the final disposal of the appeal may take some time, we
      are of the view that 50 % of the compensation that is presently lying in
      deposit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated 24-02-2012 should be
      released to the claimant on due identification.



      Nidhi Jain                                               Matter adjourned.