SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Bom) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
Vagyani B.B., J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant.
Versus
Janabai Yeshwant Kurhat others.... Respondents.
First Appeal No. 464 of 2002, decided on 16-7-2002.
Advocates appeared :
V.N. Upadhye, for appellant.

A claimant cannot file for compensation under both sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - The court held that the claimant cannot file for compensation under both sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The choice is given to the claimant to file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both. The court found that the Tribunal's award of compensation under both sections was contrary to the statutory provisions, and therefore, the award was quashed and set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The claim petition was filed against the owner of the scooter and the Insurance Company for the death of the deceased in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was challenged by the Insurance Company in the first appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal's award of compensation under section 163-A and section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was contrary to the statutory provisions. It also held that the deceased died due to his own rash and negligent driving, and the truck driver was not at fault.

Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the legality of the Tribunal's award of compensation under both sections 140 and 163-A.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant cannot file for compensation under both sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also found that the deceased died due to his own rash and negligent driving, and the Tribunal's award of compensation under both sections was contrary to the statutory provisions.

Final Decision: The first appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's award of compensation against the Insurance Company was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:---Heard.

2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing forthwith.

3. This first appeal is directed against the Award passed by the member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 129 of 1998. The accident took place on 28-2-1998 at 2.03 p.m. on Chalisgaon-Kannad road near Ambadi Canal. Deceased Raju was driving the scooter bearing No. HVG-4556. The scooter belonged to respondent No. 3 i.e. original respondent in the claim petition, who happens to be father of deceased Raju. A truck was ahead of Raju. While negotiating the V turn, the truck applied brakes. Deceased Raju, while negotiating the same V turn also applied brakes of scooter. He could not control his scooter and ultimately felled from scooter and died. Therefore, the mother of deceased Raju filed claim petition against owner of the scooter i.e. father of deceased Raju and the Insurance Company with whom the scooter was insured under the insurance policy.

4. The Tribunal treated the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and allowed the claim petition and directed the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company to pay jointly and severally Rs. 1 Lakh together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this first appeal.

5. Shri Upadhye, learned Counsel submits that the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not at all maintainable in law and the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has received compensation under no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He mainly relied upon section 163-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Shri Upadhye learned Counsel brings to my notice. From the proceeding of First Appeal No. 170 of 2001 that the original claimant applied under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation under no fault liability and the very Tribunal granted Rs. 50,000/- to the original claimant under the principle of no fault liability. Feeling aggrieved by the said interim Award, the Insurance Company had preferred First Appeal No. 170 of 2001. However, the said appeal is withdrawn by the Insurance Company on the ground that the very Tribunal has passed final Award, with liberty to challenge the same in fresh proceeding.

7. Section 163-B of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:---

"Where a person is entitled to claim compensation under section 140 and section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both."

8. The wording of section 163-B is very clear. A person cannot claim compensation under sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The choice is given to the person to claim compensation under either of sections and not both. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under section 140 as well as 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Award passed by the Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act is, therefore, contrary to the statutory provisions. Under the circumstances, the Award cannot be sustained in law. The Award passed by the Tribunal suffers from illegality and, therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. For the sake of arguments, if it is held that the claimant has filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the original claimant cannot succeed because it is an admitted fact that the deceased died on account of his own rash and negligent driving. The truck driver was not at fault. There is nothing on record to show that he was rash and negligent. While negotiating the turn, application of brakes for lowering down the speed is inevitable. The deceased applied breaks all of a sudden, lost control over his vehicle and met with accident.

10. In the result, first appeal is allowed. The impugned Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top