Compensation of motor accidents | Supreme Court to reconsider the sentence that exceeds the claim under the law of MV S.163A after the dismissal S.166 claim

For the context, section 166 allows the claimant to seek compensation based on proveing ​​the failure or negligence of the driver of the offensive vehicle. However, section 163a allows responsibility without guilt, which means that the claimant is not obliged to prove any unjustified act, negligence or default by the owner or driver of the vehicle.

THE BANK OF JUDGES Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran reasoned that section 163a is a beneficial legislation and, therefore, it is difficult to accept the decision in the Deepal Girishbhai Soni case. In view of this, the court ordered:

“The position, anyway, is that we are currently obliged to follow the decision of three Judge Bench in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra). However, taking into account our difficulty, which we have expressed here, with all due respect but purely in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that this matter requires a reconsideration of three other Judge Bench and, therefore, we send the matter A Hon’ble The President of the Supreme Court of India to constitute a bank of three judges for the reconsideration of the issue. “

To give a brief objective experience, in the present case, a Chacko George was traveling with his wife. The car was driven by a driver, and the present in the vehicle were two minor children. The car encountered an accident. The father (Chacko George), one of the minor children and the driver were killed. The mother, her surviving son and his in -laws presented claim requests before the court. Pertinently, the claim was made under section 166.

However, the petition was dismissed by the court, observing that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver. When questioned, the Superior Court confirmed the rejection. Imperiously, at this stage, the claimants made a plea for treating their claim under section 163a. However, the Superior Court, attached to the decision of Deepal Girishbhai Soni, decreased the same. In this context, the matter arose before the Apex court.

At first, the Court, after reading the aforementioned precedent, discussed the insertion of section 163a by virtue of the law.

“In Fact, this decision in paragraph 39 considers that the introduction of section 163a of the law is a social security scheme, caused by the recommendations of a review committee, appointed in several representations received from different interested parties. The need for a more complete scheme of ‘Nofault Responsibility’ was felt, for the reason for the increasing cases of motor vehicle accidents and difficulties to prove imprudence and negligent driving as a cause, which leads to the accidentT. ”Said the court.

The court observed that although this provision has been repealed, as a similar provision has been inserted, it is still relevant because it was applicable when the accident occurred.

The court highlighted how section 163a is a beneficial legislation. Therefore, in the cases, including the present in which half of the family died, the court found it difficult to accept the position of law established in Deepal Girishbhai Soni.

“In fact, the finding that if the accident occurred due to the driver’s own failure, but even in such a case, the claimants would be forbidden to move a request under section 163a of the law; If they had unsuccessfully transferred a request under section 166 of the Law, it is a difficult proposal to accept; Especially given the beneficial nature of the provision that is also incorporated, despite the other provisions of the law or any other law in force. “

The Court observed that in cases where it is not claimed under section 166, the Court must give the plaintiffs a chance to convert their claim under section 163a, even if they do not voluntarily seek it for them. In addition, he also said that in the present case, where both the owner and the insurer of the vehicle became a part, a ‘responsibility for Nofault’ could be imposed on the insurer of the other vehicle as a third party claim.

In view of these facts and circumstances, the court approved the previous order.

Case name: Valsamma Chacko and Anr v. Ma Titto & Ors., Special license request (c) No. 27621 of 2019

Appointment: 2025 LIVELAW (SC) 222

Click here to read/ download the order