LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DHANBAI KANJI GADHVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 784
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
DHANBAI KANJI GADHVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 682 of 2011)
JANUARY 17, 2011
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A and 166 -
Proceedings both u/ss. 163A and 166 - Permissibility of -
C Motor accident resulting in death of a person - Application
uls. 166 by legal heirs of the deceased -
Subsequent
application uls. 163A claiming no-fault compensation -
Application u/s. 163A partly allowed by the Tribunal -
Thereafter, Tribunal permitting the claimants to proceed with
o the application filed uls. 166 - Order of the Tribunal upheld
by High Court - On appeal, held: Claimant must opt/elect to
go either for a proceeding u/s. 163A or u/s. 166 but not under
both - Claimants having obtained compensation, finally
determined uls. 163A were precluded from proceeding further
E with the petition filed u/s. 166 - Thus, order of the Tribunal
permitting the claimants to proceed further with the petition
filed u/s. 166 as upheld by the High Court, not sustainable
and is set aside.
Deepali Girishbhai Soni and Ors. vs. United India
F Insurance Co. Ltd.Board (2004) 5 SCC ~85 - relied on.
G
H
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a
and Ors.
(2001) 5 SCC 175 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1993 (3) sec 634
(2004) 5 sec 385
Referred to.
Relied on.
784
Para 5
Para 13
•
-
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DHANBAI KANJI 785
GADHVI & ORS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 68·2
A
_..
of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.01.2010 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.
9400 of 2006.
B
M.K. Dua for the Appellant.
Brajesh Kumar for the Respondents.
The following oder of the Court was delivered
c
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed. against the judgment dated
D
- -y
15.1.201 O rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application
No. 9400 of 2006 by which the order dated 23.12.2005 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Bhuj, Kachchh
in M.A.C.P. No.759/97 permitting the respondents, who had
E
already obtained compensation under Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ('the Act' for short), to proceed with
the application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
.... _ _,.._
Act 1988, is affirmed.
3. The respondents are the original claimants. On 17.6.97,
F
' the deceased viz. ~nji Keshavbhai Gadhvi was riding his two
· wheeler i.e. Luna. When he reached near IFFCO, the driver of
taxi bearing No.GJ-12-C-9484 who was coming from the
opposite direction dashed the taxi with the Luna as result of
which Kanjibhai lost his life. Therefore, the respondents who are - G
-f-
legal heirs of the deceased respondent filed MACP No.759 of-
1997 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the
driver and owner of the taxi as well as against the petitioner
who is insurer of the taxi and claimed compensation of .
Rs. 7 ,50,000/-. The respondents had thereafter filed an
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 $.C.R.
A application at ExhibiL6 under section 163A of the Act and
claimed compensation of Rs. 3,93,500/- on the principle of no
fault liability.
4. The Tribunal had partly allowed the application filed by
•
8 the respondents under Section 163A of the Act and ordered
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,65,500/- with 12% interest
vide judgment dated 18.10.2000. The case of the petitioner is .
that the petitioner had deposited the said amount and the
respondents have already withdrawn and invested the amount
.Jr.
C of compensation as directed by the Tribunal.
5. The present petitioner filed an application with a prayer
that the application filed under Section 166 which was pending
be rejected in view of the decision of this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai V. Koda/a & Ors. (2001)
o 5 sec 175.
6. The Tribunal by order dated 25.6.2002 granted stay of
further proceedings of the petition filed under Section 166 of
the Act till further orders. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
E challenged the award passed by the Tribunal under Section
163A of the Act by filing First Appeal No.3019 of 2007. The
appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay.
7. The respondents thereafter filed an appiication with a
prayer that they be permitted to proceed with the petition filed
F under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.