SC refers to larger bench issue of compensation in road mishap

Disagreeing with its earlier verdict, the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the issue of whether for claiming compensation under a special provision of the Motor Vehicle Act the "fault" part in the road accident has to be established.
A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri differed with the earlier view of a two-judge bench that compensation under Section 163-A of the Act has been founded under "fault liability principle", saying it would defeat the very "object and purpose" of the provision.
Referring the matter to the Chief Justice, the bench said, "We are, therefore, of the view that liability to make compensation under Section 163-A (of the Act) is on the principle of no fault and, therefore, the question as to who is at fault is immaterial and foreign to an enquiry under Section 163-A.

"Section 163-A does not make any provision for apportionment of the liability. If the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of the victim or claimant, naturally it would defeat the very object and purpose of Section 163-A of the Act."
Earlier, a two-judge bench had examined the issue in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Sinitha and others.
"We, therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the reasoning of the Two-Judge Bench in Sinitha's case. Consequently, the matter is placed before the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to a larger Bench for a correct interpretation of the scope of Section 163-A ...," it said.

The special provision deals with payment of compensation and one of its parts reads: "In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."
However, the apex court said that the earlier bench had held that "it is open to the owner or the insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163-A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence a fault ground (wrongful act or neglect or default).