1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2010 1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd; Velho Building, 3rd Floor, Rua Conde de Torres Novas, Panaji-Goa .. Petitioner. V e r s u s 1. Shri Trivikram R. Kamat, aged 71 years, married; residing at Malwada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa 2. Smt. Sunita T. Kamat, aged 58 years, married, Housewife, residing at Malwada, Madkai, Ponda-Goa 3. Shri Pradip Singh, Son of Sampurna Singh, Driver and Owner of Kinetic Scooter bearing temporary Registration No.GDM-395, major of age, unmarried, Resident of Thomas Colony, Near Banana Farm, Shitalnagar, Dehu Road, Ponda- Goa. 4. Shri Satyavan Kashinath Sawant Major of age, driver of bus, GDS-2067, residing at Zaidevaddo, Khandola, Marcela- Goa. 5. Shri Joaquim D'Souza, Major of age, married, Owner of Bus GDS 2067 r/o Cumbharjua, Marcela-Goa 6. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Near Municipal Garden, Panaji-Goa 403 002. 2 7. Shri Vishwas Sadanand Surlikar Owner of the scooter bearing No.GA-01-H-4265 Residing at Bhandye Bhat, H.No.725, Betim, Bardez, Goa; 8. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Confraria Building, Jose Falcao Road, Panaji-Goa .. Respondents Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Soniya Chodankar, Advocate for respondent no.8. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date : 26 th November,2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 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. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 3 3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Claim Petition against the present petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 8 claiming compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('The Act' for short). Petition under Section 140 of the Act was also filed, which was allowed and compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under Section 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. 4. 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 under Section 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 under Section 4 140 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. 5. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 / the claimants fairly concedes that the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under Section 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 under Section 166 of the Act. 6. 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 under Section 166 of the Act, the amount paid under Section 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 5 in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to adjust the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the Act while determining its liability under Section 166 of the Act. 7. 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 under Section 166 is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to adjust the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the Act against the final liability in terms of the award passed under Section 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal shall take into consideration the amount of Rs.50,000/- already paid under Section 140 of the Act and accordingly calculate the amount, if any, payable under the award under Section 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. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA