NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SEEMA GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company is in appeal against award dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh awarding compensation of Rs. 2,99,839/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

(2.) The facts in brief are that a motor accident took place on 14.10.2011. The claimant Seema Gandhi was riding an Activa scooter which was hit by Honda City car near House No. 3062, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. As a result, claimant sustained injuries. No FIR was registered against driver of the vehicle, however, DDR dated 16.10.2011 Ex. P-53 was recorded. The claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- was awarded vide award dated 19.11.2013. The same was challenged in FAO No. 1815 of 2014 which was allowed vide judgment dated 06.04.2015 on the ground that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable as income of the claimant was much more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. Consequently, the present petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same has been allowed vide award dated 7.12.2017. Finding of rash and negligent driving has been returned and compensation as aforementioned has been awarded.

(3.) In support of the first proposition that the present petition was not maintainable as an earlier petition under Section 163-A of the Act had been dismissed, reliance has been placed upon Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda , 2004 AIR(SC) 2107 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and others , 2011 11 SCC 513. The specific argument is that remedies under Sections 163-A and Section 166 of the Act are distinct and separate and a person can elect either of them. Once he has selected the remedy under Section 163-A of the Act, he can not take re-course to the other remedy.