HC upholds ₹3 lakh compensation to Chandigarh woman injured in mishap

The accident was reported on October 14, 2011, when the claimant woman riding an Activa scooter was hit by a Honda City car in Chandigarh

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld ₹3 lakh compensation to a city woman who sustained injuries in an accident in October 2011 but chose not to file an FIR since a female was driving the offending vehicle.

The claimant had filed a plea under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and was awarded a compensation of ₹1.09 lakh in 2013. However, the decision was challenged by the insurance firm in high court. (HT FILE PHOTO)

The accident was reported on October 14, 2011, when the claimant woman riding an Activa scooter was hit by a Honda City car in Sector 20 D, Chandigarh. No FIR was registered against the driver and only a daily diary entry of the incident was recorded.

The claimant had filed a plea under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and was awarded a compensation of ₹1.09 lakh in 2013. However, the decision was challenged by the insurance firm in high court. In 2015, the high court found that her plea was not maintainable under Section 163A as her income was above the ceiling of ₹40,000 per year.

The claimant filed another plea under Section 166 of the MV Act and was awarded ₹3 lakh compensation after it was found that the car that had hit her was being driven rashly. This decision was again challenged before the high court.

The court said that simultaneous proceedings under different sections of the MV Act could not be undertaken. The remedy provided under Section 163A was on the basis of no-fault liability and had been inserted to cater to a claimant earning less than ₹40,000 per year, the court said, adding that there was no bar upon the claimant to file a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act.

Had the claimant taken advantage of the relief amount passed on the petition under Section 163A and had then filed a petition under Section 166, the appellant would be right in contending the latter order, the court said. That not being the case, the contention of the firm was rejected. The court added that though no FIR was registered, the claimant did not state anywhere that there was no rash/negligent driving.