1.0 The above appeals are directed against the judgement and awards dated 17.02.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 717 of 2001, 718 of 2001, 719 of 2001, 720 of 2001, 721 of 2001, 722 of 2001 to 724 of 2001, 753 of 2001, 754 of 2001 and 755 of 2001 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,54,500/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in M.A. C. P. Nos. 720 of 2001, 721 of 2001, 722 to 724 of 2001, Rs. 1,64, 500/ along with interest @ 9 % in M. A. C. P Nos. 719 of 2001 and 755 of 2001 and Rs. 1, 74, 500/ along with interest @ 9 % in M.A. C.P. Nos. 717 of 2001, 718 of 2001, 753 of 2001 and 754 of 2001.
2.0 On 07. 02. 2002 at about 5 O' clock, Shantiben Vestabhai Meda (Bhill) and claimants were travelling in the Truck No. GJ1V 7493 along with their goods from Chickhli and when the truck reached near Palod Village on National Highway No. 8 within the limits of Kosamba Police Station, he lost control over the steering and the truck turned turtle. As a result of this Shantiben Vestabhai Meda (Bhill) and others died. The heirs of the deceased as well as the claimants had filed applications under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed, which are challenged in these appeals.
3.0 The main contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company 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.
4.0 On the facts of the case the vehicle involved in the accident was goods vehicle. The policy of the insurance issued by the appellant Insurance Company, prohibits the use of carriage of passengers in the vehicle. Further, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Asha Rani and others, reported in 2002(2) GLR 1001 (=AIR 2003(1) SC p 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.
5.0 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 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.
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 matters in view of the aforesaid facts and ratio laid down by the Apex Court.
8.0 In the premises aforesaid, the judgement and awards impugned in the present appeal are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal to consider the same afresh in light of the discussion made hereinabove. The Tribunal shall hear and decide the matters 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 Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*