G.P.MITTAL - (1.) THE Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/New India Assurance Company impugning a judgment dated 06.07.2010 whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,66,000/- (including the interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-) was awarded in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 4.
(2.) THE ground of challenge is the failure to prove the negligence and the quantum of compensation. During the pendency of the Claim Petition an application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act (the Act) was moved but that was withdrawn by the Respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 that the Claim Petition may be treated under Section 163-A of the Act he may be awarded compensation on the basis of structured formula where the Respondents should not need any obligation to prove negligence. The question of conversion a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act into one under Section 166 of the Act came up before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ashabai Kalyan Kothi & Ors. 2009 ACJ 163, where it was held as under:- "15. The Tribunal as well as this Court always has a power to allow the conversion of a claim petition under Section 163-A into a claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. The procedure is always a handmaid of justice. We are dealing with a beneficial legislation which provides for payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the victims of an accident involving a motor vehicle. The power of the Tribunal or this Court to allow conversion of the claim petition is discretionary. While exercising the discretion of allowing conversion, no doubt, the conduct of the claimants will be relevant. In a given cases, such as the case before the Division Bench in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Rukhminibai Ashok Gore, FA No.1349 of 2004; decided on 2.3.2007, the Court can refuse to exercise the discretion. In the present case, the conduct of the claimants is not such that the discretion should not be exercised in their favour. The claim petition was filed through an Advocate after setting out a specific case that income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- p.m. The said stand was reiterated by the first respondent No.1 in the Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It cannot be said that the action of invoking Section 163-A was deliberate. The claimants have obviously acted as per legal advice. In my view this is a case where the claim petition under Section 163-A should be allowed to be converted into a petition under Section 166 of the said Act."
(3.) THIS Court in the case of Rukmani Devi v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., 2009 ACJ 2202 held that provision for award of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, an endeavor has to be made to see as to how the best the intention of legislation can be achieved so as to safeguard the interest of the victims of the accident. In para 14 it was held as under:- "14. Another question which is of the vital importance is whether the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act or visa-versa can be allowed to be converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and if the answer is yes, then what should be the stage for allowing such a petition. There cannot be any dispute that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, endeavour has to be as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safeguard the interest of the victims of the accident rather than defeating the same. The statute has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the courts to interpret the statute to see that true intention of legislature is achieved. Taking a purposive interpretation of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the clear intendment of the legislation was to come to the rescue of all those who in the absence of an evidence are not in a position to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act where death of the victim or permanent disablement of the victim is required to be proved by establishing the factum of negligence involving the offending vehicle resulting in to causing the accident but under Section 163-A, the requirement of proving the negligence has been dispensed with." In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4, the Claim Petition is treated under Section 163-A of the Act and the income of the deceased is restricted to Rs. 40,000/- per annum.;