Under Section 163A, absence of a valid driving licence does not defeat insurer liability.

On 9 April 2013, the claimant was driving a jeep when it collided with a trailer, causing him grievous injuries. He claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging annual agricultural income of Rs. 40,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum and held the owners and insurers of both vehicles jointly and severally liable.

The jeep’s insurer appealed, contending that the claimant had no valid driving licence and that the Tribunal had therefore wrongly imposed liability on it.

1. Whether the claimant’s alleged lack of a valid driving licence relieved the jeep’s insurer of liability under Section 163-A.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the owners and insurers of both vehicles jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for compensation on a structured-formula basis for death or permanent disablement arising from the use of a motor vehicle. Its non obstante clause gives it overriding effect, and subsection (2) provides that a claimant need not plead or establish wrongful act, neglect, or default by the vehicle owner or owners.

The Court also referred to Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) & Ors. v. Kandla Dock Labour Board & Anr. in considering liability despite the claimant’s own negligence; no further citation details are given in the judgment.

The Court treated the claim as one governed by Section 163-A and emphasized that subsection (2) removes the requirement to establish fault by the owner or owners.

It noted the Tribunal’s finding that the jeep’s policy was in force and covered the risk of a paid driver, and that the Tribunal had relied on Valiben in imposing liability despite the claimant’s own negligence.

On that basis, it concluded that the Tribunal had committed no error in holding opponents 2 to 5 jointly and severally liable; it did not separately elaborate on the legal effect of the claimant’s alleged lack of a driving licence.

Any interim relief was vacated, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the concerned court.