1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 24.03.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), BhujKutch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.584/1991 to 587/1991, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,600/ to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 584/1991 to 586/1991 and Rs. 2,02,800/ to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 587/1991, along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The original claimants had filed applications under the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Savitaben, Tulsaben, Baluben, and injured person Baldevbhai Haribhai in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 04.09.1991. The said applications came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award, which are under challenge in these appeals.
3. The main contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant is that there has been breach of condition of the policy and 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. It is contended that the deceased and the injured person were travelling on the dumper wherein no passenger could be carried. Further, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and others, reported in 2002(2) GLR 1001 (=AIR 2003(1) SC 607 the Apex Court has clearly held that insurer of the goods vehicle will not be liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to passengers carried in a goods vehicle.
5. 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.
6. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. 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.
7. I have gone through the judgment 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.
8. In the premises aforesaid, the judgment 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.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/