Contributory negligence is foreign to Section 163A proceedings and cannot be used to reduce compensation.

On January 27, 2023, the deceased was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by an ST Bus driven by respondent No. 1, resulting in fatal injuries

The legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) seeking structured compensation of ₹5,00,000

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Patan, by judgment dated October 15, 2024, determined the total compensation to be ₹5,00,000 but reduced it by 50% (awarding ₹2,50,000) based on the "contributory negligence" of the deceased

The appellants challenged this reduction before the High Court

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in apportioning 50% contributory negligence to the deceased in a claim filed under the special provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act

The court applied Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation on a "no-fault liability" basis using a structured formula

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *United India Insurance Company v. Sunil Kumar (2014) 1 SCC 580*, which established that in Section 163A proceedings, the question of fault is "immaterial and foreign to an enquiry" and that the section does not permit apportionment of liability

Further, it cited *Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 719*, confirming that Section 163A has an overriding effect via a non-obstante clause, exempting claimants from pleading or establishing neglect or default by the owner or driver

The Court reasoned that because the petition was specifically filed under Section 163A, the Tribunal’s inquiry into the negligence of the deceased was legally impermissible

Citing *Sunil Kumar*, the Court noted that allowing insurance companies to prove contributory negligence would defeat the social security object of the "no-fault" scheme

Since the claimants established that the death occurred during the use of a motor vehicle and the vehicle was insured, the statutory obligation to pay the full structured compensation was triggered

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s decision to slash the compensation by 50% based on negligence was a fundamental error of law, as Section 163A operates as a distinct code where the "fault" of the victim cannot be used to reduce the award

The Court held that the claimants are entitled to the full compensation amount.

The award was enhanced from ₹2,50,000 to ₹5,00,000, with the additional ₹2,50,000 to be deposited by the insurance company with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition