Consequently contributory negligence is also irrelevant. In order to ascertain the liability under Section 163A, the scheme of Section 163A is to be followed which creates different absolute statutory liability. Extent of dependency is also irrelevant to ascertain the quantum of compensation. To put it strait, it may be any compensation under Section 163A of the Act, the legislature has made the motor vehicle as also the authorised insurer as statutory liable. The significance of including the authorised insurer as the one on whose shoulders the principal liability exits can not be ignored. Meaning thereby the authorised insurer has been advisedly made principally liable under Section 163A to pay the amounts due under Section 163A. Non-obstanate clause makes it clear that the liability has to be understood ignoring the provisions of all other laws including the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Policy of insurance may be relevant only to ascertain the status of the authorised insurer as such authorised insurer in respect of the vehicle. It would be myopic not to perceive the significance of the legislature making the authorised insurer principally liable to unlike in a claim under Section 166 or even Section 140 where the authorised insurer has no principal liability and such insurer becomes liable only by the play of Section 147 and Section 149 of the Act. Similarly Section 163A which declares the right and liability does not in any way limit the applicability of the section to third parties. Plain language of the section appears to take in all victims of motor accidents whether they are inside or outside the vehicle. The section, by the wide sweep of the semantics, appears to take within its width all victims of accidents, therefore, the liability and the claim
