SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the claimants before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. THEy are the widow, minor daughter and mother of the deceased Rajnesh Kumar. THEy originally filed a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, claiming compensation under no fault liability. In the claim petition the income of deceased was alleged to be more than Rs. 40,000 per annum. It would be pertinent to mention that the deceased Rajnesh Kumar was the driver of the vehicle, which met with accident. THE learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 4,34,000 to the claimants. THE insurance company challenged this award before this court by filing F.A.O. (MVA) No. 235 of 1997. This appeal was allowed by this court on the ground that the claim petition under section 163-A was not maintainable since the income of the deceased was alleged to be more than Rs. 40,000 per annum. THE relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

(2.) THIS order was challenged by claimants before the Apex Court but the Apex Court rejected the Special Leave Petition.

(3.) IT is clear from the operative portion of the order, especially the italics portion that this court had only permitted the claimants to take "such other" legal action as is permissible under the law. These words make it clear that the action contemplated was action other than that contemplated under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By no stretch of imagination the claimants could be permitted to file a fresh application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. If this interpretation is accepted, this would set at naught not only the judgment of this court but also the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra).