AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are claimants in the Claim Petition No. 112/1999 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Panaji and Ms. Soniya Chodankar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8. None appears on behalf of the other Respondents, though served.
Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Claim Petition against the present Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 claiming compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (''The Act'' for short). Petition u/s 140 of the Act was also filed, which was allowed and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-was awarded u/s 140 of the Act, which was equally shared by the present Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 6 and 8. The Claim Petition was partly allowed against Respondent No. 3 - the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and the Petitioner -the Insurance Company. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were exonerated and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs along with interest thereon. The amount of Rs. 50,000/-was also ordered to be adjusted against the compensation awarded.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Execution Application against all the Respondents in the Claim Petition. However, execution was sought only against the present Petitioner and Respondent No. 3. On behalf of the present Petitioner, it was contended before the Tribunal that an amount of Rs. 50,000/-paid u/s 140 of the Act had to be adjusted against the liability of the Petitioner under the award. The Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T. however, held that the amount paid by other Insurance Companies u/s 140 could not be adjusted against the liability of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said finding and the consequential order passed by the Tribunal the Petitioner has filed the present petition.
Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / the claimants fairly concedes that the amount of Rs. 50,000/-paid u/s 140 of the Act has to be adjusted against the amount due and payable in terms of the award passed in the claim petition filed u/s 166 of the Act.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8, I am of the considered opinion that since the claimants were paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/-under Section 140 of the Act, the said amount had to be adjusted against the final award passed in the Claim Petition. No doubt, in the present case, Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were exonerated and the Claim Petition was dismissed as against them. However, while determining the compensation payable u/s 166 of the Act, the amount paid u/s 140 of the Act has to be adjusted. This being the position, I find merit in the submission of Mr. Afonso that the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T. was not justified in holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to adjust the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/-paid u/s 140 of the Act while determining its liability u/s 166 of the Act.
In view of the above, the impugned order to the extent it holds that the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/-cannot be adjusted against the compensation payable under the Award u/s 166 is set aside. The Petitioner is held entitled to adjust the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/-paid u/s 140 of the Act against the final liability in terms of the award passed u/s 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal shall take into consideration the amount of Rs. 50,000/-already paid u/s 140 of the Act and accordingly calculate the amount, if any, payable under the award u/s 166 of the Act and pass appropriate order. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal at Panaji on 6th January, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. for further directions.
Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.