Claims under Section 163-A are no-fault proceedings; insurers cannot plead the victim’s negligence.

On 11 June 2012, motorcycles bearing registration numbers HR-51AG-3165, driven by deceased Munna Lal, and DL-8S-AX-3985, driven by deceased Hasrat Ali with Phool Bano as pillion rider, collided head-on near Village Toli Majra Pipalgaon, Sikandra Rau, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.

The police recorded only Daily Diary Entry No. 30; no FIR or criminal investigation followed.

The legal representatives of Munna Lal filed a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without alleging negligence, and were awarded ₹4,10,000 with 7.5% interest by the MACT, Patiala House Courts.

The legal representatives of Hasrat Ali and Phool Bano filed separate claims under Section 166 of the Act. The MACT awarded ₹20,77,048 with 9% interest to Hasrat Ali’s legal representatives and ₹16,31,914 with 9% interest to Phool Bano’s legal representatives.

The Insurance Company challenged all three awards, contending that the Section 163-A proceedings affected the other claims, that negligence of Munna Lal had not been proved, and that Hasrat Ali was at least contributorily negligent.

The record contained no site plan or investigation material. The principal evidence regarding negligence was the testimony of PW-2, Musheer Ahmed, whose credibility was questioned by the Insurance Company.

Whether the claim filed by Munna Lal’s legal representatives under Section 163-A affected or barred the independent claims filed by the legal representatives of Hasrat Ali and Phool Bano under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Whether negligence in the head-on collision had been established against Munna Lal’s motorcycle on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, notwithstanding the absence of an FIR, site plan, or reliable eyewitness evidence?

Whether the Insurance Company could raise negligence or contributory negligence as a defence in the Section 163-A claim filed by Munna Lal’s legal representatives?

The Court applied Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, treating Section 163-A as a no-fault, structured-compensation remedy distinct from the fault-based remedy under Section 166.

Relying on Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385, it held that Section 163-A compensation is final in nature and cannot be denied or recovered merely because the victim may have been negligent; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398, reaffirmed that the insurer cannot plead negligence of the victim in a Section 163-A proceeding.

The Court further applied the beneficial-legislation principle under the Motor Vehicles Act, as recognised in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (1999) 1 SCC 90, and the duty to award just compensation under Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710.

For the Section 166 claims, negligence was assessed through the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, as explained in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shehnaj Begum & Ors., 2026:DHC:13169.

The Court held that the Section 163-A claim filed by Munna Lal’s legal representatives was based only on the involvement of the other motorcycle and did not require, or result in, any finding regarding negligence.

The fact that the legal representatives of Hasrat Ali and Phool Bano were impleaded as pro forma parties did not bind them to any determination of negligence in that proceeding. Their Section 166 claims therefore required independent adjudication.

Although the testimony of PW-2 was found doubtful and the police investigation was incomplete, the Court considered the undisputed head-on collision between the two motorcycles and the absence of any evidence indicating the involvement of a third vehicle or another cause.

Applying res ipsa loquitur and the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court concluded that, if negligence was to be attributed on the available material, it was reasonably attributable to Munna Lal, who was alleged to have crossed to the opposite side while overtaking.

The subsequent complaint submitted by Hasrat Ali’s family alleging rash and negligent driving by Munna Lal’s motorcycle provided additional contextual support, although the Court did not rely upon it as conclusive evidence.

The Court also held that negligence could not be raised by the insurer to defeat the Section 163-A award, since permitting such a defence would undermine the statutory purpose of Section 163-A.

It held that the Section 163-A award in favour of Munna Lal’s legal representatives was unaffected by the separate Section 166 claims, and that the Insurance Company could not rely upon negligence or contributory negligence to challenge that award.

In MAC.APP. Nos. 255/2016, 258/2016 and 259/2016, the balance compensation amounts, together with accrued interest, were directed to be released to the claimants in lump sum.

In MAC.APP. No. 259/2016, the share of deceased claimant Shikhawat Ali was directed to be distributed equally among the remaining claimants.

Pending applications were rendered infructuous, and the statutory deposits were directed to be refunded to the Insurance Company subject to compliance with the deposit orders.