New Delhi: Motor Vehicles Protects a policyholder against the claims made by a third party for damage due to the functions of the policyholder, but what about the claim against the policy holder’s injury/death in a road accident? Family members of such a policyholder can also claim compensation, the Supreme Court has referred to the issue to a large bench as the top court has contradictory decisions on the matter.Hearing the compensation argument of a minor girl, who loses both her parents in a car accident in which her father was on a driving seat, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Vinod Chandran said that Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be invited for such a claim, as it is not only a special provision, which is not only for any other law.In this case, the minor was compensated by the insurance company for his mother’s death, but not for his father because she was the insured party herself.The bench said: “… A claim under Section 163A, according to the words employed in the provision, incorporates every claim and is not limited to a third party claim; without any need to establish negligence, if due to death or permanent disability is due to motor accident. 147 or contractual liability decreased to write in an insurance policy”.The insurance company, however, took the stand that the petitioner was successful for the property of the owner of the vehicle, who died in the accident, he could not be the person who has liability and is the recipient of compensation.“This will override the provisions under sections 147 and 149, along with other provisions and laws regulating other provisions and insurance of the Act, as well as the conditions of the policy limiting the claim regarding the owner-driver for a certain amount. It is intended to include non-obstructed clause under Section 163A, which provides for no -let liability claims, for which compensation is limited to structured formulas under the IInd Schedule. This is a beneficial piece of law, resulting in a prevalent piece of vehicles in today’s congested roads, keeping in mind the increased opportunities of an accident. The bench stated that it was a social security scheme, which considers the need for a more comprehensive plan of ‘no -let’ liability for the reasons for increasing examples of motor vehicle accidents and has difficulty in proving rash and careless driving, “the bench said.
