The judgment establishes the independence of proceedings under Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that a claimant cannot pursue remedies under both sections simultaneously.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Mittal, J.

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against award dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh awarding compensation of Rs. 2,99,839/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

2. The facts in brief are that a motor accident took place on 14.10.2011. The claimant – Seema Gandhi was riding an Activa scooter which was hit by Honda City car near House No. 3062, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. As a result, claimant sustained injuries. No FIR was registered against driver of the vehicle, however, DDR dated 16.10.2011 Ex. P-53 was recorded. The claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- was awarded vide award dated 19.11.2013. The same was challenged in FAO No. 1815 of 2014 which was allowed vide judgment dated 06.04.2015 on the ground that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable as income of the claimant was much more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. Consequently, the present petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same has been allowed vide award dated 7.12.2017. Finding of rash and negligent driving has been returned and compensation as aforementioned has been awarded.

Two submissions have been raised on behalf of the appellant i.e. -

(a) Petition under Section 166 of the Act was not maintainable after dismissal of the earlier petition under Section 163-A of the Act.

(b) Finding of rash and negligent driving was erroneous in view of DDR Ex. P-53.

3. In support of the first proposition that the present petition was not maintainable as an earlier petition under Section 163-A of the Act had been dismissed, reliance has been placed upon Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, AIR 2004 SC 2107 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and others, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 513. The specific argument is that remedies under Sections 163-A and Section 166 of the Act are distinct and separate and a person can elect either of them. Once he has selected the remedy under Section 163-A of the Act, he can not take re-course to the other remedy.

4. In response, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that no doubt, the remedies under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act are independent and the claimant can not take benefit of both, however, since the petition under Section 163-A of the Act was held to be not maintainable, the petition under Section 166 of the Act was maintainable. The judgment in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case.

5. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) a reference was made to a three Judge bench as Division Bench doubted two Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and others, 2001(2) SCR 999 wherein it had been held that proceedings under Section 163 of the Act were final and barred proceedings under Section 165 of the Act. After going through the legislative history of Section 163-A and after interpreting the statutory provisions the Larger Bench in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) held that the claimant could not prefer a petition under Section 163-A as well as another one under Section 166 of the Act. Findings are reproduced below for ready reference :-

“57. We, therefore, are of the opinion that remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. One, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both.

58. In Kodala (supra) the contention of the claimant that right to get compensation is in addition to the no-fault liability was, thus, rightly rejected. In agreement with Kodala (supra) we are also of the opinion t