Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Section 163B of the Act reads as under;

"163B. Option to file claim in certain cases.

Where a person is entitled to claim compensation under section 140 and section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both."

13. The embargo under Section 163B of the Act gives an option to file claim petition either under Section 140 or under Section 163A of the Act and not under both the provisions, but no such restriction has been placed under the Act in choosing either of the two remedies i.e. under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163A of the Act. Section 140 of the Act deals with grant of interim compensation, but Section 163A provides for a situation to grant a pre-determined sum without insisting on a long drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident. The said Section 163A was a kind of new mechanism evolved by the legislature so as to grant quick and efficacious relief to the victims falling within the specified category, which was not available to the victims under Section 166 of the Act.

14. The object of section 163A and the Second Schedule of the Act is to avoid long-drawn litigation and to avoid delay in payment of compensation to the victim or his heirs who needs urgent relief, and therefore, the Courts have been permitting the claimants to make application under section 163A of the Act at any stage of the proceedings, so long as no order is passed on the application under section 140 of the Act.

15. The object with which section 163A of the Act has been inserted and the non-obstant clause with which sub-section (1) of section 163A of the Act commences clearly indicate that the legislature did not intend to prevent the claimant from getting compensation as per the structured formula merely because in his original claim petition he had prayed for compensation on the basis of "fault liability" principle. There is no prohibition in any provision of the Act against the claimant praying for compensation as per the structured formula after his having filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Act.

16. Remedy for payment of compensation both under sections 163A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies there under simultaneously. One thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under section 163A or under section 166 of the Act, but not under both.

17. Taking a purposive interpretation of Section 163A of the Act, the clear intendment of the legislation was to come to the rescue of all those who in the absence of an evidence are not in a position to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act where death of the victim or permanent disablement of the victim is required to be proved by establishing the factum of negligence involving the offending vehicle resulting in to causing the accident but under Section 163A, the requirement of proving the negligence has been dispensed with.

28. Thus, in view of the above decision, this contention of the Appellant is also rejected.

29. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Legal Heir‟s of the deceased is just, fair and equitable. However, the Tribunal granted the compensation only in favour of Respondent no.2 i.e. mother of the deceased.

30. The compensation under section 163A of the Act is awarded to the claimants of the deceased. The view taken by the Tribunal in respect of legal heir is clearly erroneous because, the compensation payable in a claim petition under section 163A of the Act is to legal heirs. The fact that the claimants are the parents of the deceased is not denied or disputed, so they would be the legal heirs to the estate of the deceased and thus are entitled to get the compensation. However, Respondent No.1 Gajraj Singh, the father of the deceased has not filed any appeal.