RAMDEVSING V CHUDASMA Vs. HANSRAJBHAI V KODALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-original opponents in Claim Case No. 776 of 1995 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot have by this appeal challenged the interim award of compensation dated 30-4-1998 passed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) Claim Case No. 776 of 1995 came to be filed by present respondents as original applicants/claimants on the following facts : One Mayur, minor son aged about 6 years of the claimants died of injuries sustained by him by a Motor Vehicle being Laxury Bus No. GJ-3 T 9815 driven by appellant No. 1, owned by appellant No. 2 and insured with appellant No. 3. The claim is filed for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000.00. However, claimants filed application Exh. 4 to award them compensation pending the claim application under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 ("Act" for short). The Tribunal after considering the fact of accident, age of victim and income of victim, passed the award under Sec. 163-A of the Act and the same is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) The main challenge of the appellant to the award is on the ground that the same is passed without affording any opportunity to the opponents either to put up their defence or to dispute their liability and also to dispute the factors on which the claim is based. It is also the ground that Sec. 163-A is not meant for interim compensation but is meant for full and final compensation on the heads covered in structure formula and is an alternative to Sec. 166 of the Act. It is challenged also on the ground that grant of award under Sec. 163-A would be so highly detrimental to the opponents that they would be foisted with liability without having any opportunity to defend their case. They have also challenged the award on the question of quantum of compensation. They have also contended that before deciding the claim under Sec. 163-A of the Act, negligence of the victim and that of other vehicle involved, if any, is also required to be decided. In the absence of any decision for the same, the conclusion that may be reached to come to just compensation would not be fair and legal one. It is also contended that to determine just compensation issue of quantum is required to be raised and decided as Schedule to the Act is only a guide as held by the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilokchandra and Ors., 1996 ACJ 831 : 1996 (3) GLR 136 (SC).