1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgement and award dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in MACP No. 1278 of 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
On 13.08.2006, at around 1.30 p.m., the one Milan Bharatbhai Parsana was travelling on Hero Honda Motor Cycle No. GJ-3AH-8043 as pillion rider and when they reached near Kalawad Road Swimming Pool, one Motor Cycle No. GJ-3MM-8784 came there in excessive speed and dashed with their motor cycle and the said Milan sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The deceased was 19 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month.
Applicants being parents of the deceased filed MACP No. 1278 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot claiming compensation of Rs. 4,60,500/-. The tribunal, vide judgement and award dated 09.04.2009, partly allowed the claim petition granting Rs. 2,28,500/- along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.
Being aggrieved by the said order, present appellant, original opponent No.3 preferred the said appeal.
3. Though served none appears for the respondents.
4. 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. 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. 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. In the premises aforesaid, the judgement and award impugned in the present appeal is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide afresh after considering all the evidence and the discussion made hereinabove. It will be open to the parties to lead their evidence to support the case. The Tribunal shall hear the claim petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two years from the date of writ of this order. In the meanwhile the awarded amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit by the Tribunal with any nationalized bank in the name of the Nazir of the Tribunal and the receipt thereof shall be retained with the Tribunal. The interest that may be accrued on the said deposit shall not be disbursed. Ultimately, the amount shall be disbursed as per the final decision of the Tribunal and the amount, if already disbursed, shall be given set off.
8. It is clarified that Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Appeal stands disposed of.
JYOTI
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.]