FAO No. 110 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 110 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.03.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.2. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, Ambala, vide which the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation, was allowed. The learned Tribunal, on the evidence and pleadings of the parties, recorded a finding, that death of Smt. Angrej Kaur had occurred in a vehicular accident, due to the involvement of bus No. DL-1PL-0786. The petition being under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed, as negligence was not required to be proved. The claimants, were successful in proving that the death of Smt. Angrej Kaur had occurred due to use of motor vehicle. The learned Tribunal granted amount of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lac and seventy five thousand only), as compensation to the claimants. FAO No. 110 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The Insurance Company did not claim right to contest the claim on merit, by moving an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court while issuing notice of motion passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that the owner of the bus Fateh Singh (respondent No.2) did not disclose the name of the driver of the bus that was involved in the accident. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the quantum of compensation is excessive, inasmuch as, dependency of deceased Angrej Kaur has been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Besides, it is submitted that no post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I am of the view that the compensation awarded is on the basis of formula provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' – for short). The dependency of the claimants has been worked out to Rs.1,75,000/- which the claimants are to share equally. The notional monthly earning of the deceased Angrej Kaur to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month has been held to be not on the higher side. After having 1/3rd for her own expenses and after applying the multiplier of five in accordance with the provisions of the second schedule to the act the dependency of the claimants has been worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The said reasoning recorded by the Tribunal and the conclusion reached at as regards the dependency and compensation payable are just and proper and call for no interference in the appeal. The fact that no post-mortem of the deceased was conducted is also FAO No. 110 of 2008 (O&M) -3- inconsequential. In a case of civil liability, the liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. The standard of proof required in a criminal trial to prove the guilt of an accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt is inapplicable. When the accident in the case has been held to be established and death of Angrej Kaur has been caused as a result of the accident the mere fact that no post-mortem was conducted is hardly of any consequence. Therefore, the appeal qua the claimants is dismissed. However, as regards the liability to indemnify the owner of the bus for failure to furnish the name of the driver, issue notice of motion to respondent No.2 (Fateh Singh), the owner of the bus for 24.03.2008.” Learned counsel for the appellants contended, that in absence of particulars of the driver, it was not possible for the appellant, to find out whether he had a valid driving licence or whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the insurance company should have been given recovery rights to recover the amount, from the owner as the insurance company could not be held liable to indemnify the owner in absence of proof of valid driving licence. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed, to be rejected as this plea would not be available to the insurance company under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- “163 – A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formuala basis. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having FAO No. 110 of 2008 (O&M) -4- the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation. – For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. (2) 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. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” Reading of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would show, that liability to pay compensation is of the owner of the motor vehicle or authorised insurer without any proof of negligence. The liability being absolute of the insurance company, and not limited to the terms of the insurance policy under Section 163-A. The contention raised, therefore, cannot be accepted. The matter would have been different, if it was a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 12, 2010 R.S.