AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P. No. 1313 of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Guntur under Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''the Act''), claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of death of one Ravela Korneli s/o Ramaiah. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are brothers of the deceased. It was pleaded that while the deceased and another were crossing the road at Ratnala Cheruvu on the bypass road on 23.4.2006, a Tempo Tax bearing No. AP 27-V 9391, owned by Respondent No. 4 and insured with the Appellant, dashed against the deceased leading to his death on the spot. They pleaded that accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
The Respondent No. 4 remained ex parte and the O.P. was opposed by the Appellant alone. It was pleaded that the O.P. is not maintainable, since it was filed under Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Act and that the Respondents cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased.
Heard Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B. Parameswara Rao, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exhs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the Appellant, RW 1 was examined and Exh. B1 was filed. There was no serious dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased. The controversy was only as to the maintainability of the O.P. and the entitlement of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for claiming compensation.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have invoked Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the Act in their claim petition. They did not realize that those provisions are mutually exclusive of each other and a petition cannot be filed invoking all those provisions. Section 140 provides for payment of a lump sum amount without the necessity to examine the question of negligence or fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. In the case of death, a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000 is to be awarded. Section 163-A of the Act, on the other hand, provides for award of compensation as per Second Schedule and here again, it is not necessary to prove any act of negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. Section 166 of the Act provides for compensation, which is not limited to any of these factors. It is relevant to take note of Section 163-B which reads as under:
163-B. Option to file claim in certain cases.--Where a person is entitled to claim compensation u/s 140 and 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both.
From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that a claimant has to choose either Section 140 or Section 163-A of the Act and he cannot invoke both. On this ground, the O.P. was liable to be rejected.
The second aspect is about the entitlement of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are brothers of the deceased. It is seriously contended on behalf of the Appellant that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not answer the description of the dependants.
This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the O.P. is treated as the one u/s 140 and the compensation mentioned in that provision is awarded.
Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and it is directed that the O.P. filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall be treated as the one u/s 140 of the Act. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified to the one of Rs. 50,000 u/s 140 of the Act and it shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall be entitled to receive the amount in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs.