Judgment:
Amitava Lala, J.
1. This is an appeal of the insurance company. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, an accident took place by a Bolero Car and the driver of the Bolero Car sustained injuries. An application was made by the injured before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') saying that while he was driving the Bolero Car, a motor car came from the opposite side wrongly and when he tried to save it, his vehicle turned turtle, due to which the accident took place. Upon accepting such statement the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut by its judgment and order dated 6.4.2009 held that the claimant will be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,67,048 including Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 48 for medical bills.
2. By preferring this appeal the insurance company has contended that there is no corroboration of statement of the injured with the record. Neither any other person of the vehicle was produced nor any F.I.R. was lodged nor any G.D. entry was made by the police authority nor any independent witness was examined before the Tribunal.
3. This is an application under Section 163A of the Act and claimant is not required to plead or establish his case. Section 163A of the Act, which was introduced by way of Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994, is as follows:
163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) ....
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company has placed before us a judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Appaji (since deceased) and Anr. v. M. Krishna and Anr. 2005 (1) TAC 994 (Kant), Para 16 of the judgment says as follows:
It is evident from the above that Section 163A was never intended to provide relief to those who suffered in a road accident not because of the negligence of another person making use of a motor vehicle, but only on account of their own rash, negligent or imprudent act resulting in death or personal injury to them. The recommendation of the Law Commission were concerned more with the victims of hit-and-run accident cases where the particulars of offenders could not be ascertained.
5. The case of the insurance company is that no vehicle was coming from the opposite side to hit the vehicle when the driver said that the vehicle turned turtle. Therefore, we cannot avoid but to hold that it is a hit and run case. Secondly from the statement of the victim it appears that he was not negligent in any manner whatsoever. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of such statement, because there is no scope of making any pleading contrary to the same. It has been further contended before this Court that although it has been stated that the case is of hit and run but there is no physical contact between the two vehicles. In absence of any contrary stand on behalf of the contesting respondents the provision of Section 163A of the Act squarely applies in the case.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly contended before this Court that it is difficult for the insurance company to contradict the statement of the victim. However, since the statute has fixed the liability, we cannot proceed against the statute. The insurance company is the insurer of the owner, therefore, it is a responsibility of the owner to confirm the cause. In this case, the insurance company is pleading for the owner, but if it finds that the owner is responsible, it will be able to recover such sum from the owner. It is always open for it to proceed accordingly since the cause of accident is accepted. Therefore, unless and until any contrary evidence is available as against the statement of the victim, we cannot go beyond such statement as per the scheme of Section 163A of the Act. Having so, we affirm the judgment and order passed by the concerned Tribunal dated 6.4.2009 impugned in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed at this stage of admission itself.
7. However, no order is passed as to costs.
8. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed.