The judgment establishes the legal principle that claimants have the option to seek compensation under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the non-obstante clause in Section 163-A provides for special provisions for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/12/2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in MAC No. 47/2009, titled Smt. Bhawna Devi and others vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, for short “the Tribunal” whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,95,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award” for short.

2. The claimants, driver and insured have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained the finality so far as it relates to them.

3. The claimants had filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for the grant of compensation, as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition.

4. The respondents resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed.

(i) whether Jagdish died on 5.8.2009 at Lachori Tehsil Bhalei Distt. Chamba in a vehicular accident involving vehicle NO. HP73-7170 as alleged? OPP.

(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved ion affirmative, whether petitioners being dependants of deceased are entitled for compensation, if so, from which of the respondents? OPP.

(iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR-3 to 6.

(iv) Whether the petitioners are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing this petition. OPR 3 to 6.

(v) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1.

(vi) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was being plied in contravention of conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-1.

(vii) Relief.

5. The claimants have examined three witnesses and Smt. Bhawna Devi claimant No. 1, herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1.

6. The insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted.

7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that Jagdish deceased died in the accident which was outcome of the use of a motor vehicle. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 by the Tribunal, are upheld.

8. Before I determine issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6.

9. It was for the respondents to discharge the onus, have not led any evidence. However, I have gone through the claim petition. Admittedly, the accident was outcome of the use of a motor vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act has gone through the sea change by now. In the year 1994, an amendment was made and Section 163-A was introduced in the Act. The compensation payable under Section 163-A of the Act was not as an interim measure, but was final.

10. In case titled Surinder Kumar Arora and another vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla & Ors. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2241, it has been held that the claimant has option to seek compensation either under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment herein.

“9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of the parents of the deceased to have established that respondent no.1 drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order to help respondent no.1, the claimants had not taken up that plea before the Tribunal. Therefore, High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. (supra) would have come to the assistance of the claimants.

10. In our view the issue that we have raised for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In the said decision the Court stated :

"....T