1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 31.03.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Bharuch below Exh. 1 in in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.715 of 1995 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,57,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% thereon from the date of petition till its realization with costs.
2.0 It was the case of the claimants that Ranjitsinh Ramsinh Panjroliya, driver of the ST Bus No. G.J. 1/ Z1456, was driving the bus on 24.10.1995. When the bus reached near Khamar Chokdi, near Rajpipla, the bus turned turtle in a ditch. The driver sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. The legal heirs therefore preferred the aforesaid claim petition under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles wherein the aforesaid impugned award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased was the driver of the bus of the Appellant Corporation and it was because of his rash driving the bus fell into the ditch and the death was a consequence of the negligence on the part of the driver. He further submitted that the claimant failed to establish the income and the age and therefore the quantification arrived at by the learned Judge is erroneous and illegal.
4.0 It is by now well settled law that application under Section 163A 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 163A 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 163A 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 85, 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 163A 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 judgement and award impugned in the present appeal is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the same afresh in light of the discussion made hereinabove. The Tribunal shall hear and decide the matter as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of receipt 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. The amount shall be disbursed as per the final decision of the learned Tribunal.
8.0 It is clarified that Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*