Separate claims under Sections 163A and 166 may arise from the same accident.

Shankarmani Nautiyal, the owner and driver of a Maruti car, died when the vehicle fell into the Bhagirathi River on 12 November 2015; his wife also died in the accident

His daughter sought compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000, finding that a Rs. 100 premium had been paid for coverage of the owner-driver.

The insurer appealed, arguing, among other things, that claimants arising from the same accident could not pursue claims under different provisions of the Act and that negligence had not been established.

1. Whether a claim under Section 163A could be maintained where other claims arising from the same accident had been brought under Section 166.

2. Whether the claimant had to prove rash or negligent driving to recover under Section 163A in respect of the deceased owner-driver.

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a no-fault basis for compensation, without requiring the claimant to establish negligence; Section 166 claims, by contrast, require proof of negligence.

Relying on Surender Kumar Arora v. Manoj Bisla, AIR 2012 SC 1918, and the principle quoted there from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court stated that claimants may choose to proceed under either Section 166 or Section 163A.

The Court also treated the Rs. 100 premium as covering the owner-driver’s risk up to Rs. 2,00,000.

The Court rejected the insurer’s contention that the use of different statutory provisions for claims arising from the same accident was barred, noting that the insurer had identified no legal prohibition on separate occupants pursuing claims under different provisions.

It distinguished the insurer’s reliance on Surender Kumar Arora, concluding that the cited authority supported the claimants’ option to proceed under Section 163A.

Because the claim was brought under that no-fault provision, proof of rash or negligent driving was unnecessary; the Tribunal had also found that the owner-driver’s risk was covered by the premium paid.

It dismissed the insurer’s appeal and directed that the balance amount and statutory deposit be remitted to the Tribunal; the Registry was directed to return the original record.