01Facts
The claimants were travelling in a car driven by its owner, Dr. Rajiv Rampal, when an avalanche or mass of ice fell on the vehicle near Lakkar Mandi, Dalhousie, pushing it into a gorge.
¶ 2–5, 8Dr. Rampal died and the other occupants suffered injuries.
¶ 2–5, 8The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the accident was an “Act of God” and that negligence had not been established.
¶ 2–5, 8The claimants appealed.
¶ 2–5, 8They argued that compensation remained payable on a no-fault basis and that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applied despite the accident having occurred in 1997.
¶ 6, 9, 1502Issues
i.1. Whether the claimants could obtain no-fault compensation where the accident resulted from an avalanche but involved the use of an insured motor vehicle.
¶ 8ii.2. Whether Section 164 applied to an accident occurring before its commencement, and whether relief under that provision could be granted in claims brought under Section 166.
¶ 12–16iii.3. Whether the deceased owner-driver’s dependants were entitled to compensation under Section 164, and what compensation was payable to the injured claimants.
¶ 18–2003Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as applicable before the relevant amendment, and Section 164 as brought into force from 1 April 2022.
¶ 9–16It treated Section 164 as providing no-fault compensation where death or injury resulted from the use of a motor vehicle, without requiring proof of negligence, and held that the provision applied retrospectively to earlier accidents and could operate even where a claim had been filed under Section 166.
¶ 9–16The Court relied on Roopa v. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6797 of 2026; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2025 ACJ 244; and K.R. Jagadish and Anr. v. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., 2025 ACJ 188, for the retrospective application of Section 164.
¶ 16It also held that the owner-driver was not covered as a third party on the policy terms before it, which covered a paid driver but did not provide cover for the owner’s own injuries or death.
¶ 18–19Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140Section 163Section 164Section 166
04Reasoning
The evidence and DDR established that the claimants were occupants of the insured car when the avalanche caused the accident; thus, the use of a motor vehicle was proved, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that the event was an Act of God and negligence was not established.
¶ 4, 8, 11The Court held that Section 164’s no-fault remedy applied retrospectively and could be invoked despite the claims having been pursued under Section 166.
¶ 12–17However, Dr. Rampal was both the vehicle’s owner and driver, and the policy did not cover him for the relevant loss; the Court therefore declined compensation to his dependants for his death.
¶ 18–19The injured occupants were entitled to the fixed no-fault amount under Section 164.
¶ 2005Holding
The Court dismissed the death claim appeal, FAO No. 4430 of 2004, because the deceased owner-driver was not covered under the policy on the facts found.
¶ 19It allowed the four injury appeals—FAO Nos. 4429, 4431, 4432 and 4433 of 2004—and awarded each injured claimant ₹2,50,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization.
¶ 20–21Original Court PDF
Abhishek RampalvsNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
