Dismissed

Bikkar Singh and Ors. v. P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2012CWP/4437/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurer arguing that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act requires impleading the other vehicle's owner to determine responsibility. The Court held that the provision establishes strict liability without requiring proof of negligence by the other vehicle, unless a defense is raised under Section 166.

What did the court decide?

The appeal by the insurer was dismissed as there was no error in the impugned order.

Bikkar Singh and Ors. Vs P.R.T.C. and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO No. 4437 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 4437 of 2012 Date of decision September 20, 2012

¶5

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶6

....... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Balwinder Singh and others

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Tajender K Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the reporters or not? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No

¶16

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶17

The appeal is by the owner of the car on the ground that in a collision that took place between the motor cyclist and the car, the culpability must be seen by reference to both the vehicles and the case could not have been prosecuted without impleading the owner and insurer of the motor cycle. Learned counsel refers to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which spells out that the accident must have been with reference to use of any motor vehicle or vehicle and according to him, the plural used would necessitate a claimant to implead the owners both vehicles where ever more than one vehicle was involved. I hold that the reading of the Section to be erroneous, for, the Section merely spells out that when the accident was by use of vehicle or vehicles, there

¶18

¶19

FAO No. 4437 of 2012

¶20

shall be a strict liability norm for enforcement of claim . It does not require the claimant to prove that there was negligence on the part of the other vehicle which was involved in the accident. It has to be on the other hand assumed for admitting the claim. If it ever were to be a contention that the motor cyclist himself was responsible then such a defence would be possible where a petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In a claim under Section 163A if the involvement of the insurer's vehicle itself was not denied, there could be no compulsion for the claimant to make the owner of the motor cycle to be made a party to force an adjudication to see whether the motor cyclist was also responsible for the accident or not.

¶21

There is no error in the order passed. The

¶22

appeal by the insurer ought to fail and is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶24

September 20, 2012 archana

Bikkar Singh and Ors. v. P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikkar Singh and Ors. v. P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Parsad Gaur Vs Rajan Gupta, IAS and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Vs Jasmeet Kaur & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Teja Singh & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Jagsir Singh Dhaliwal and Anr.

Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs Husan Lal and Anr.

Kulwant Kaur Vs Sukhdev Singh & Anr.