Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is an additional remedy alongside a claim on the principle of fault liability, or whether it is an alternative, self-contained scheme that excludes recourse to Section 168.
Analysis: Section 163A was introduced as a special provision for compensation on a structured formula basis, with a non-obstante clause and without requiring proof of wrongful act, neglect or default. The scheme of the Act distinguishes it from Section 140, where the Legislature expressly provided that no-fault compensation is in addition to other rights and also provided for adjustment or reduction where appropriate. By contrast, no corresponding provision for adjustment or refund exists in relation to compensation under Section 163A. The legislative history, including the objects and reasons, the Review Committee report, and the aim of providing speedy relief without long-drawn litigation, shows that Section 163A was intended to create a final and alternative route to compensation rather than an additional one to be pursued along with fault-based adjudication.
Conclusion: Compensation under Section 163A is not in addition to a fault-liability claim under Section 168. It is an alternative scheme, and the claimant must elect to proceed under that scheme alone.