In Section 163A MV Act proceedings, compensation is payable without proof of negligence regardless of the victim's fault.

On June 25, 2016, the deceased, Bharatbhai, was driving a vehicle that collided with a tanker, resulting in his death

The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar, dismissed the petition on April 9, 2021, ruling that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased

The claimants appealed, contending that negligence is irrelevant under Section 163A and seeking enhanced compensation of ₹5,00,000/- under the newly inserted Section 164 of the MV Act

1. Whether the defense of negligence on the part of the victim can be raised by the insurer in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the MV Act

2. Whether the amended provisions of Section 164 of the MV Act, providing for a fixed compensation of ₹5,00,000/- in case of death, can be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings

Section 163A of the MV Act, which provides for compensation on a structured formula basis without requiring proof of negligence

Insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence in Section 163A proceedings as established in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar (2019).

Section 164 of the amended MV Act regarding fixed compensation for death or grievous hurt

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila Halder (2024), which held that Section 164 is beneficial legislation and its computational modalities apply retrospectively to pending claims

The Court observed that the Tribunal erred by dismissing the claim based on the deceased's negligence, as Sunil Kumar clarifies that fault is irrelevant under the structured formula of Section 163A

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court noted that while the petition was filed under Section 163A, the subsequent amendment inserting Section 164 introduced a fixed liability of ₹5,00,000/- for death

Applying the ratio in Urmila Halder, the Court reasoned that since Section 164 is a beneficial provision intended to clarify computational modalities, the claimants are entitled to the higher statutory amount despite the accident occurring prior to the amendment

The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the Tribunal's award. The respondent-Insurance Company was directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to the appellants with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition until realization