K.S.JHAVERI - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kutch (for short, "the Tribunal") below Ex. 6 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1005 of 1999 whereby, the application preferred u/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") was partly allowed.
(2.) THE original claimants had filed the aforesaid Motor Accident Claims Petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.00 on account of death of one Samat Babu Jaru while travelling in a tanker no. GJ-12-T-9764 on 06.01.1999. The said application came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal and the opponents were held jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,65,500.00 by way of compensation along with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till its realization to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant ­ Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of this appeal. Ms. Bhaya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant ­ Insurance Company submitted that the claim petition preferred by the claimants u/s. 163-A of the M.V. Act is subject to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule appended thereto. Learned Advocate for the appellant ­ Insurance Company has submitted that while awarding compensation u/s. 163-A of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim application under Section 163-A when the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000.00 which is the statutory limit. 3.1 Ms. Bhayahas relied upon a decision in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and ors. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in [2004] 5 S.C.C. 385 and more particularly, on the observations made in Paras 42 and 67 of the said decision, which reads as under; "42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs.40,000.00 having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto, compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other facts relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining herself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle. 67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs.40,000.00 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs.40,000.00 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act".
(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the claimants supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal was completely justified in passing the impugned award. He has, however, submitted that if the Court is inclined to follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra), the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh.;