Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Fatmabibi Hasanali

High Court Of Gujarat|19 January, 2012
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15.12.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Veraval in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 7 of 2000, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 08, 500/­ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date8, of application till realization.
2.0 The original claimants had filed application under Section 163­A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Shri Nana Hasanali @ Saiyed Rehmanmiya on 25.12.1999 who was travelling as Labourer in Goods Rickshaw ( Chhakda) bearing registration No. GTW 9445. The Tribunal passed the aforesaid award, which is challenged in this appeal.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the statutory defence; that the learned Tribunal has not considered the contentions which were raised and also not considered the evidence produced by the appellant while deciding the application under Section 163­A; 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.
4.0 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 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 one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
(viii) It is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the Tribunal shall consider the same afresh, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier judgment and award.
(ix) R & P, if lying with this court, to be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Fatmabibi Hasanali

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
19 January, 2012
Judges
  • Ks Jhaveri
Advocates
  • Mr Sandip C Shah