Motorized Vehicle Law | The victim does not need to prove the negligence of the offensive driver to claim compensation U/S 163A: PUNJAB and HARYANA SUPERIOR COURT

The Superior Court of Punjab and Haryana has made it clear that the negligence of the driver of the offensive vehicle does not need to be proven by virtue of section 163-A of the Motorized Vehicle Law, to claim compensation.

According to section 163-A, despite anything contained in this law or in any other law at the time in force or instrument that has the force of the law, the owner of the motorized vehicle or the authorized insurer must pay in the case of death or permanent disability due to the accident that arises from the use of motor vehicles, compensation, as indicated at the second time, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

The Sub Clause (2) adds that in any compensation claim under subsection (1), the claimant must not declare or establish that death or permanent disability with respect to which the claim has been made was due to any act or negligence unjustification or predetermined of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles in question or any other person.

Southwar Thakur Judge and Judge Kirti Singh saying, “In terms of section 2 of Section 163-A of the 1988 Law, therefore, the determination of the fault or determination of the negligence grievance, rather it is not required, with which in a request issued under the Section 163-A of the 1988 Law, rather, there is no fault determination (s) or any compensation determination in terms of the subsequent principles that arise from the appropriate failure determinations that are made, therefore, it is considered that is done so. “

The court also explained that the responsibility is subject to the owner of the offensive vehicle only in the field that he was the “user” at the relevant time.

These observations were made when listening to a statement of reference, in which the court decided a lot of requests presented by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award of the court.

The pleas were based on a common FIR in 2013 in which a traffic accident was supposedly caused by a tractor that was parked in the middle of a road without warning signs.

Examining the contested award, the Court determined that it was awarded under section 163-A F the Law.

The court observed that, although the failure is not required to be determined, but “However, the quantification of the compensation in which it is, therefore, is linked respectively in a sum of RS.50,000/- In case of death, while, with respect to the permanent deactivation, the claimant is involved, the claimant is involved, The amount of compensation has set a sum of RS .25,000 “.

He added that “Petition presented under section 163-A of the 1988 Law, the compensation that will be determined in which it must be on the basis of the structured formula, which is provided for in the second time attached to the 1988 law, the schedule ” .

Although he acknowledged that the provision has been amended in 2019, the court said it will not be relevant because the incident occurred in 2013.

The bank also said that medical expenses could not be questioned if they were tested for valid medical invoices and documentary evidence.

Consequently, the court said that “,”The Insurance Company cannot challenge the prize, despite the same for the reasons (supra), so it is based well on the non -relucting documentary evidence, it suggests incurring real medical expenses, by the claimants in the claimants in the of his respectively, ensuring reliable treatment. “

Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Gurjinder Kaur and others (along with other requests)

MR.Suvirlewan, lawyer for the recurring insurance company

(In Fao Nos. 5311, 5313 and 5314 of 2015) and for surveyed No. 3-Insurance Company (in FAO No. 6079-2015).

Mr. Sahil S. Chauhan, lawyer of the defendant No. 1 (in Fao Nos. 5311, 5313 and 5314 of 2015) and the appellant (in FAO No. 6079-2015).

Click here to read/download the order