Under Section 163A, the deceased’s negligence alone cannot defeat a compensation claim.

The appellants, the parents of Sarath Kumar, sought compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after their son died in a motorcycle accident on 4 August 2017.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the deceased responsible for the accident and holding the petition not maintainable because he was a non-earning person.

On appeal, the claimants challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on the FIR and contended that negligence was not required to be established under Section 163A.

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for compensation without requiring claimants to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement resulted from a wrongful act, neglect, or default of the vehicle owner or another person.

The Court applied Schedule II of the Act, as amended, to determine compensation, fixing a notional annual income and applying a multiplier.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Tribunal had primarily relied on the FIR to find that the deceased was responsible for the accident.

The High Court held that, in a Section 163A claim, negligence by the deceased could not by itself justify dismissal because the claimants were not required to establish fault.

It therefore set aside the Tribunal’s finding and assessed compensation using a notional annual income of Rs. 25,000 and a multiplier of 17, adding amounts for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and loss of estate.

The Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,39,500, with interest and costs, if any, and directed the insurer to deposit the amount within six weeks.

The claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount upon application, subject to payment of any court fee due on the enhanced compensation.