1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 15.10.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux I), Nadiad below Exh.1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 48 of 1999 , wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,900/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date 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 Jayantibhai Patel in a vehicular accident that occurred on 19.04.199. The claimants have filed an application under Section 163A of the Act for compensation wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed, which is challenged in this appeal.
3.0 The main contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant is that in the objection filed before the Tribunal it is stated that the accident had occurred on account of sole negligence of the deceased. 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 Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not raised issues. He placed reliance on the decision of the of the Honble Apex Court in case of Ningamma & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 262= ACJ 2009 (3) SC page 2020. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Sinitha and Others, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 356 wherein 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.
5.0 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.
6.0 In the case of Sinitha and Others (supra), 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.
7.0 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.
8.0 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.
9.0 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*