National Insurance Co. vs Ashokbhai Dwarkadas Vani and Others

Honorable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5th November 2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 402 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. According to the claimants, on the date of the incident i.e. on 13th March 2006 while the deceased was going motorcycle No. GJ.5.DR.155 from Bajipura to Kadodara, it dashed with Truck bearing No. MP.09.KC.4187. In the said accident, deceased - Rushil received serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The claimants therefore filed the aforesaid application u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the impugned award came to be filed which is challenged in the present appeal.

Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on account of sheer negligence on the part of the deceased himself and though this defence was raised by the insurance company, the same was not considered by the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal clearly fell in error while passing the impugned award.

It is by now well settled law that application u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be treated at par with an application u/s 140 of the Act. u/s 140 of the Act only fixed compensation is payable whereas it is not the case in an application u/s 163-A of the Act. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, award u/s 163-A is an alternative to an award u/s 166 of the Act and therefore application u/s 163-A cannot be disposed of in a summary manner without considering the issue of liability of the Insurance Company and also other issues.

In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha and Others, , it is held that it is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim u/s 163-A of the Act by pleading and establishing a ''fault'' ground.

I have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that u/s 163-A of the Act involvement of particular identified vehicle is only required to be proved. It appears that the Tribunal has not considered the facts and law mentioned hereinabove. Resultantly, the Tribunal is required to reconsider the matter in view of the aforesaid facts and ratio laid down by the Apex Court. In the premises aforesaid, the following order is passed:

i. The impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside.

ii. The matter is remanded to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudication afresh.

iii. this Court has passed the aforesaid order in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not followed the procedure established by law and therefore the Tribunal may not be influenced by the order of this Court.

iv. The amount invested in Fixed Deposit, as directed by this Court, shall be continued in Fixed Deposit and the claimants shall be entitled for the periodical interest on the said Deposit only up to the date of this judgment and order.

v. It is, however, made clear that interest accruing on the said Fixed Deposit shall be accumulated and will be adjusted at the time of the final award. vi. The amount awarded & already withdrawn by the claimant, pursuant to the impugned award, will be adjusted at the time of the final award.

vii. Since the matter is pending since long, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than two years from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.

viii. It is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the Tribunal shall consider the same afresh, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier judgment and award.

ix. R & P, if lying with this Court, to be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.