PREM LAL Vs. RIPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands directed, by the aggrieved legal heirs, of, deceased Ajay Kumar, who met his end, in a motor vehicle accident, hence, involving a motor cycle, bearing registration No. HP-55-7905, (i) wherethrough the relief, of, therein determined hence compensation amount, became declined, to, the claimants. Initially, at the outset, it is to be borne in mind, that, the claim petition, as, constituted before the learned MACT concerned, became constituted, under, the provisions, of, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (i) necessarily hence the apposite fault, of, deceased Ajay Kumar, who was atop, hence vehicle bearing No. HP-55-7905, was, not enjoined to be adjudicated upon. However, the learned Tribunal, in, the impugned verdict, had, declined, the, awarding of compensation, to, the LRs of the afore deceased, on anvil, of, a judgment rendered, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as "Ningamma and another versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020", (ii) wherein an expostulation of law, is, embodied, vis ƒ  -vis, the Insured of the vehicle concerned, stepping into shoes of the owner, and, also his becoming barred to claim hence compensation, as the liability, to pay the same, is, upon him. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereafter, the fastening, of, any absolutest reliance, upon, the afore verdict, is mis-befitting, (iii) as the learned Tribunal, has chosen to mete, only a, piecemeal deference, visà  -vis, the afore mandate, borne, in the judgment (supra), rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, than its proceeding to, render also deferences, to, thereafter, hence occurring, paragraphs 25 and 26, in, the Judgment (supra), paras whereof, stand extracted, hereinafter:

(2.) Consequently, for want, of, the afore conundrum, hence, emerging before the Bench of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence rendering the verdicts (supra), alluded, in, the impugned order, (i) rather, With the afore conundrum, purportedly emerging, and, also becoming dwelt, upon, and being subsequently adjudicated, upon, by a three Bench, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, (ii) and, whereon, a verdict stood rendered, in a case titled as, "Deepal Girishbhai Soni versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd, 2004 5 SCC 385", (iii) and whereon(s), a, candid expostulation of law, is embodied, hence barring, the, disabled claimant concerned, or the, legal representative(s),of, the deceased concerned, to, rear a claim, under, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, upon, the, pleaded, and, proven income of the afore(s), at, the relevant time, hence exceeding Rs. 40,000/-, (iv) and, rather upon the afore income, of, the afore, at the relevant time, hence exceeding Rs. 40,000/-, rather it, becoming pronounced therein qua thereon(s), hence the apt recoursable remedy, by them, becoming comprised, in, the one constituted, under, Section, 166 of the M.V. Act.

(3.) Be that as it may, since the extant petition, is, constituted under the mandate, of, Section 163-A of the MV Act, and, it remains un-constituted, under, the provisions of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, besides predominantly, when, the, income, of, the deceased concerned, at the relevant time, was pleaded, and, also proven to be exceeding Rs. 40,000/- (i) thereupon reiteratedly, the claimants, may not, recourse, the remedy constituted, under Section 163-A of the Act, whereas, the befitting recoursable remedy, was, the one constituted, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Dehors the above, in the larger interest, of, justice, and, for ensuring qua the claimants' becoming, not, deprived, of, assessment, of, just and reasonable compensation qua them, thereupon, it is open for the claimants concerned, to, institute a fresh petition, under, Section 166 of the M.V.Act, before, the learned MACT concerned, and the latter, shall upon its presentation therebefore hence shall make, in accordance with law, an adjudication thereon.