FA/197320/2005 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1973 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA : Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH : Sd/- ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================= SHARDABEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus RAJESHBHAI RATILAL SHAH & 1 - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR JOY MATHEW for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI for Defendant(s) : 1, MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 2, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH FA/197320/2005 2/5 JUDGMENT Date : 10/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA) 1. This appeal is for enhancement of the compensation than awarded by the Tribunal as per its judgment and award dated 02.05.2002 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.152 of 2001. 2. Initially, the original claimant had filed a Compensation Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehilc Act and, thereafter, during the pendency of said petition, vide an application, Exh.20, a request was made to convert the same into an application under Section 163A and order to that effect came to be passed. At the end of trial, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/-, but 1/3 amount has been deducted from the above referred amount and ultimately, Rs.3,83,000/- has been awarded. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Joy Mathew and learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr.Rajni Mehta. It is to be noted that learned counsel, Mr.S.A. Querishi is appearing for the respondent no.1, however, he is not present in FA/197320/2005 3/5 JUDGMENT the Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Co., Mr.Rajni Mehta has drawn our attention that once the Tribunal has dealt with the matter under Section 163-A, now Appeal cannot lie as being not maintainable, for which, he has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2000(2) GLR 1336. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Joy Mathew is not in a position to come out from the above law, which has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court. 6. We have considered the judgment, upon which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel, Mr.Mehta reported in 2000(2) GLR 1336, more particularly, paragraph no.6, which reads as under:- “6. It is clear from plain reading of the above provision that the Tribunal is bound to award interim compensation under Section 163-A only for the amount and to the extent as indicated in the Second Schedule. We are unable to accept the view that the tribunal has simply to take guidance from the Second Schedule and can travel beyond what is contained in the Second Schedule in suitable cases. That would actually amount to reenacting and re- legislating Section 163-A of the Act which is not function and jurisdiction of FA/197320/2005 4/5 JUDGMENT the Court. The Courts are required to interpret the provisions of the statue in conformity with the intention of the legislature. We do not find any ambiguity in Section 163-A of the Act which requires interpretation. In our view, even a person who is claiming annual income beyond Rs.40,000/-, can move an application under Section 163- A of the Act but the tribunal while awarding the compensation under this Section cannot travel beyond the annual income of the victim or deceased at Rs.40,000/-. If any amount in excess of this annual income is to be claimed by the heirs of the deceased or by the victim, he or they can do so is an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The intention of legislature in providing compensation under the structural formula has been to provide some adequate compensation to the victim or to the heirs of the deceased as interim measure. Adequate compensation under Section 163-A of the Act is not to be equated with actual compensation to be awarded in the main claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While deciding the main petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is widened and it can take into consideration actual income of the deceased and can proceed to determine the actual compensation payable to the victim or to the heirs of the deceased. We are therefore, of the view that prima facie, the structural formula is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 7. In short, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., FA/197320/2005 5/5 JUDGMENT Mr.Mehta is squarely covered by the above referred judgment, wherein it has been specifically come to a conclusion that though the person applying or claiming under Section 163-A of the Act can claim more compensation, the Tribunal cannot award compensation beyond what is contemplated and prescribed in IInd Schedule. Thus, the original claimant has filed Claim Petition for Rs.15.00 lacs under Section 166 of the Act and as stated above, thereafter, by way of application, Exh.20, it has been converted under Section 163-A and, therefore, the Court below has rightly dealt with the same under Section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the same. 8. In the result, the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (R.P.DHOLAKIA, J) (M.D.SHAH, J.) /patil