Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 140(4) and Section 163A

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 140(4) and Section 163A—There is no equivalent of sub-section (4) of Section 140 in Section 163A of the Act—Whereas, under sub-section (4) of Section 140, there is a specific bar, whereby the concerned party (owner or insurance company) is precluded from defeating a claim raised under Section 140 of the Act, by “pleading and establishing”, “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”, there is no such or similar prohibiting clause in Section 163A of the Act—The additional negative bar, precluding the defence from defeating a claim for reasons of a “fault” (“wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”), as has been expressly incorporated in Section 140 of the Act (through sub-section (4) thereof), having not been embodied in Section 163A of the Act, has to have a bearing on the interpretation of Section 163A of the Act—Legislature designedly included the negative clause through subsection (4) in Section 140, yet consciously did not include the same in the scheme of Section 163A of the Act—The legislature must have refrained from providing such a negative clause in Section 163A intentionally and purposefully—In fact, the presence of sub-section (4) in Section 140, and the absence of a similar provision in Section 163A, in our view, leaves no room for any doubt, that the only object of the Legislature in doing so was, that the legislature desired to afford liberty to the defence to defeat a claim for compensation raised under Section 163A of the Act, by pleading and establishing “wrongful act”, “neglect” or “default”.  

File Name:- SC_DECEMBER 2011_9