1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 18.03.2002 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),Junagadh below Exh.46 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 18 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 In the present case the accident in question occurred on 18.4.2001 on Manavadar-Vanthali Road near Santalpur and the vehicle involved is a carrier rickshaw. In the accident the claimant sustained injuries and took treatment. The claimant has filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also preferred application under Section 163-A of the Act, wherein the aforesaid award was passed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the appellant has insured the vehicle as a Delivery Van, a transport vehicle. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits a person to use a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. It is submitted that in the present case the driver was not holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle and therefore there is clear breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
4.0 Thus, according to learned Advocate for the appellant, 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 163-A of the Act by pleading and establishing a 'fault' ground.
5.0 The main contention raised by learned advocate for the appellant is that there has been breach of terms and conditions 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.
6.0 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 163-A 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.
7.0 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 163-A of the Act by pleading and establishing a 'fault' ground.
8.0 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.
9.0 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 Tribunal.
10.0 It is clarified that Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Appeal stands disposed of.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top