URMILABEN BABULAL PATEL Vs. DIVYALATABEN MANUPRASAD MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When earlier order dated 14.10.97 was passed, learned advocate appearing on caveat had filed sick-note and in his absence the said order was passed. Upon perusal of the said order, it appears that hearing of the application was adjourned from time to time at the instance of the learned advocate appearing on caveat for the respondent-original claimant. Even today he has filed sick-note and is absent.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned advocate Shri R.H. Mehta that the award, which has been challenged in the present appeal, was passed under the provisions of sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The claimants have also filed an application praying for compensation under the provisions of sec. 166 of the Act and the said application is pending before the Tribunal.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned advocate that in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Rodala, being Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2001 dated 4.4.2001, it is not open to the claimant to file an application under sec. 166 of the Act if an application has already been filed for compensation under sec. 163-A of the Act. The question, which was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hansrajbhai Rodala (supra) was whether the compensation payable under sec. 163-A of the Act as per the structured formula basis, is in addition or in the alternative to the determination of the compensation on the principle of fault liability. While considering the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the circumstances in which the Act was amended. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a committee to review the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, was set up and the said committee had observed that determination of cases with regard to motor accidents used to take a long time and, therefore, under a system of structural compensation, the compensation payable for different classes of cases depending upon the age of the deceased, monthly income at the time of death, earning potential in the case of minor, loss of income on account of limb, etc., should be notified and the affected party should then have an option of accepting lumpsum compensation under the scheme of structural compensation or of pursuing his claim through normal channel. In pursuance of the recommendation made by the committee, necessary amendments were made in the Act and the said fact would clearly indicate that the scheme evolved under the provisions of sec. 163A of the Act is in the alternative to the determination of compensation on fault basis under the Act because the object underlining the said amendment was to pay compensation without there being any long drawn litigation on a pre-determined formula, which is known as structured formula basis, which itself is based on relevant criteria for determining compensation and the procedure of paying compensation after determining the fault is done away. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the right to get compensation under the provisions of sec. 163-A of the Act is not in addition to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability.