[2025:RJ-JP:19837] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1063/2000 1. Smt. Shailbala Bhatnagar, aged 56 years, w/o Late Shri Virendra Swaroop Alias Bindu Bhatnagar. 2. Bhuwnesh Bhatnagar aged 18 years s/o Late Shri Virendra Swaroop alias Bindu Bhatnagar r/o B-11(A) Laxmi Narainpuri, Galta Road Jaipur ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Shri V. N. Srivastav, r/o A, Uda Bhawan, MI Road, Jaipur (Given in R C Address) Plot No.295, Guru Jambeshwar Nagar, Owins Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Given in Insurance Policy Address). 2. M/s. New India Insurance Company, M.I. Road, Near Government Hostel, Anand Bhawan, Sansarchandra Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. C. P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Rishipal Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 28.06.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as "learned MACT Court"), titled as "Smt. Shailbala Bhatnagar & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr." in Claim Petition No.1242/1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act, 1988"), has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the original claim was filed under the provisions of Section 163-A of [2025:RJ-JP:19837] (2 of 4) [CMA-1063/2000] the Act, 1988, therefore, the learned MACT Court erred in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of negligence of the claimant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaji & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 2816/2018, reported in 2018 3 ACC 907, decided on 09.08.2018. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the said award is based upon due appreciation of the pleadings, facts and law cited by the parties. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In the impugned award, the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 was rejected solely on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased were deemed not to be entitled to any compensation under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. 6. The reasoning recorded in the impugned award is untenable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivaji & Anr. (supra). 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710, held that; "to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to [2025:RJ-JP:19837] (3 of 4) [CMA-1063/2000] understand Section 163A of the Act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is "final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time". The Court observed that if an insurer was permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163A of the Act, it would "bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self- contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention". Consequently, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation." 8. Since the issue involved in the present case is no longer res- integra and is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned award, being contrary to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned MACT Court to decide the same afresh on its merits. 10. Since the accident occurred on 20.03.1999, to avoid any further delay, the parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT Court on 15.07.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:19837] (4 of 4) [CMA-1063/2000] 11. Record of the learned Court below shall be sent back with no order as to costs. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/36 Whether Reportable: Yes/No