Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1278 (PNJ)

SANJEEV KUMAR v. RAM PAL

2013-09-20

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. CM No. 24206-CII of 2012 1. 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 u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed by learned Tribunal vide the impugned award for the reason that section 163A 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 u/s 163A of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that section 163A of the Act is different from section 166 of the Act only on the aspect that u/s 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 u/s 163A 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. 2. It is true that the accident as required u/s 163A 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 163A 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. 3. Section 163A of the Act covers cases where the accident had occurred due to use of the vehicle. Compensation in a petition brought u/s 163A of the Act has to be assessed as per the structured formula. However, it is clear from the language employed in section 163A of the Act that it covers only the cases of death and permanent disablement. No third category of cases is covered by this provision. Compensation in a petition brought u/s 163A of the Act has to be assessed as per the structured formula. However, it is clear from the language employed in section 163A 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 u/s 163A of the Act for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 4. 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 u/s 163A of the Act is, thus, affirmed. The appeal, therefore, appears to have no merit and is dismissed in limine.