ORAL JUDGMENT

1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 01.11.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi-II), Additional District Judge, Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 7 of 2009, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 511000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization.

2.0 On 21.08.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. Shambuji Javanji Thakore was driving motor cycle bearing Old No. GJ-2C-400 and New No. GJ- 2AL-2957 in the cross road of Panchhor-Hardesan. At that time unknown trailer/vehicle collied with the motor cycle. As a result of this, Shambuji succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The heirs of the deceased therefore, filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 to get the compensation of Rs. 700000/- for the death of Shambuji. The Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award, which came to be challenged by preferring the present appeal.

3.0 The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was who was driving the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident. He further submitted that it is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be to defeat a claim under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing a 'fault' ground.

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

5.0 In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha and Others, reported in 2011(13) SCALE 84= 2012 (2) SCC 356,, it is held that it is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing a 'fault' ground.

6.0 I have gone through the judgement of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that under Section 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.

7.0 In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and 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 award.

(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 and if 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 obse