A Section 163A claim requires proof that the accident arose from the use of the vehicle, not fault.

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Saranan @ Sajanan Das, a truck driver, in an accident involving truck No. WGQ-1333 and allegedly another vehicle, No. WB-23A/5601.

The claim was initially dismissed; on an earlier appeal, the Division Bench set aside that decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

On remand, the Tribunal again dismissed the claim, finding that the accident and the other vehicle’s involvement had not been proved. The claimants appealed again.

The High Court considered the FIR, the police report submitted under Section 173 CrPC, and the post-mortem report.

1. Whether the evidence established that an accident occurred due to the use of truck No. WGQ-1333, resulting in the driver’s death, even if the involvement of the alleged other vehicle was not established.

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that the accident had not been proved.

The Court treated the claim as one based on no-fault liability, referring to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and held that proof of an accident arising from the use of the vehicle was sufficient for compensation.

It directed payment of ₹5 lakh under Section 164 of the Act.

The judgment also referred to the police report under Section 173 CrPC as evidence of the investigation and seizure, and to the post-mortem report as evidence that death resulted from injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.

The Tribunal had focused on the absence of satisfactory evidence linking the alleged second vehicle to the accident.

The High Court held that this did not resolve the separate question of whether the accident occurred due to the use of truck No. WGQ-1333, which was the relevant inquiry under the no-fault approach it applied.

The FIR, police report recording the seizure of the truck and blood-stained road pitch, and post-mortem report together corroborated the claimants’ case that a road accident involving the truck caused the driver’s death.

The Court therefore found the accident sufficiently proved and the claimants entitled to compensation.

The claimants were awarded ₹5 lakh, with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim was filed until the date of judgment.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount with interest before the Registrar General within eight weeks of communication of the order; the claimants were permitted to withdraw it upon completing the necessary formalities.

The Court also directed payment of deficit court fees within four weeks and return of the trial court record by Special Messenger, with the cost to be deposited by the claimants within ten days.