AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Chandra Kumar, J.—The claimant filed this appeal challenging the award dated 02.05.2005 passed in O.P. No. 167 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short ''the Tribunal''). The appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 25,000/- to him.
The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
"On 17.02.1996, the claimant along with his family members was proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 1 T 560 from Dwarapudi to Annavaram. When they reached outskirts of Kathipudi village one Trax jeep while over taking the car dashed against the car, consequently, the car turned turtle. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada, therefrom he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, an operation was conducted and his left hand was amputated and skin grafting was done. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-."
The 1st respondent owner of the car filed counter denying the material averments made by the claimant. It is further contended that the car driver was not negligent. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company with which the car was insured filed counter and averred that the driver of the car was not negligent and the claimant is not entitled for the amounts claimed by him.
The claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor was examined as PW.2 and Exs. A1 to A108 were marked.
On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Trax jeep. The claimant would be entitled to compensation under no fault him under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''the Act'') and accordingly granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by the claimant.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant filed an application under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under Section 163-A of the Act even if the claimant failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the Trax Jeep.
The settled legal position is that the Claims Tribunal shall treat the report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under Sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Act. When a report filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 is to be treated as an application for compensation it would be irrelevant whether a claim is made under Section 166 or Section 163-A of the Act. Moreover, in this case, as seen from the decree itself, the claimant has filed the application under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act. As far as Section 163-A of the Act is concerned, the negligent issue would become irrelevant, irrespective of the pleadings or evidence of the parties with regard to negligence, the Claims Tribunal should award compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 163-A of the Act is very clear, it is as follows:
"In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."
Therefore, even when more than one vehicle is involved or any other person is involved, irrespective of the negligence of any one driver or both the drivers or the driver of the vehicles, the claimant would be entitled to compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Even if there is any evidence with regard to negligence, the Tribunal need not appreciate the same unless the Tribunal Is inclined to dispose of the application under Section 166 of the Act. Only, in respect of claim under Section 166 of the Act, the claimant has to plead or prove the negligence.
In view of the above discussions, the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Tribunal and the lower Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimant. If the Tribunal feels that the claimant fails to prove the negligence under Section 166 of the Act, the application filed by the claimant should be treated as application under Section 163-A of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.