Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs Ram Pal And Ors on 20 September, 2013
F.A. O. No. 5360 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 5360 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision:-20.09.2013
Sanjeev Kumar
....... Appellant
Versus
Ram Pal and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
for Mr.Vpin Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
CM No.24206-CII of 2012 Delay of 138 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
FAO No. 5360 of 2012
This is an appeal brought by the claimant against dismissal of his claim petition by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur vide award dated 16.01.2012. The claim petition brought by Sanjeev Kumar, the appellant under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed by learned Kumar Dinesh 2013.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 5360 of 2012(O&M) -2- Tribunal vide the impugned award for the reason that section 163-A of the Act only covered the cases of death and permanent disablement and as in the case in hand, claimant had not suffered any permanent disablement, the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163- A of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that section 163-A of the Act is different from section 166 of the Act only on the aspect that under section 166 of the Act, the claimant has to prove that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle while under section 163-A of the Act he can maintain a claim petition just by establishing the accident to have occurred on account of use of a vehicle. According to him, the claim petition could have been dismissed only if the accident did not occur on account of use of the vehicle, which is not the case here.
It is true that the accident as required under section 163-A of the Act need not be proved to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. A case of an accident is covered by section 163-A of the Act if the same has occurred on account of use of a vehicle. However, this is not the only difference between the above mentioned two provisions.
Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where the accident had occurred due to use of the vehicle. Compensation in a petition brought under section 163-A of the Act has to be assessed as per the Kumar Dinesh 2013.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 5360 of 2012(O&M) -3- structured formula. However, it is clear from the language employed in section 163-A of the Act that it covers only the cases of death and permanent disablement. No third category of cases is covered by this provision. It is not in dispute in the case in hand that the claimant- appellant did not suffer any permanent disablement on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. So in the absence of any permanent disablement the claimant cannot seek compensation under section 163-A of the Act for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.
Learned Tribunal has been justified in his observation in this regard. Finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1 that the claim petition is not maintainable under section 163-A of the Act is, thus, affirmed.
The appeal, therefore, appears to have no merit and is dismissed in limine.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 20.09.2013 JUDGE dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.09.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh