1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 498 of 1997 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY V/S BABU SINGH & ORS Mr. RK MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the respondent Date of Order : 6.11.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal is by the Insurer against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Tribunal Balotra dt. 24.1.1997 assailing the acceptance of the claim filed under Section 163A, and awarding sum of Rs. 2,45,373/-, and then directing that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded under Section 140 be reduced from this amount, and thus decreeing the same for the balance amount of Rs. 1,95,373/-. Arguing the appeal it is contended that in view of the provisions of Section 163B of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has the choice, either to file claim under Section 163A, or under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and cannot claim under both, and since the claimant had availed the compensation under Section 140, the further claim under Section 163A could not be entertained. 2 I find substance in the submission. For ready reference, I may gainfully quote the provisions of Section 163B which read as under:- “163B. Option to file claim in certain cases- Where a peron is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both.” A look at the impugned award shows that the learned Tribunal itself after assessing the compensation awardable to the claimant at Rs. 2,45,373/- has directed this amount to be reduced from the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act being Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant made available for my perusal the award passed under Section 140, by the very same learned Tribunal, being dt. 18.7.1996. The award impugned in the present case has been passed in the claim no. 10/96, while the award passed under Section 140 appears to have been passed in Case No. 11/96. Thus, the two separate claims; one under Section 163A, and the other under Section 140 had been filed, and claim under Section 140 had already been decreed on 18.7.1996. In such circumstances per force the language of Section 163B the claimant no more remains entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A. The net result is that the appeal is allowed. The 3 impugned award is set aside, and the claim under Section 163A is dismissed, in view of the claimant having received the compensation, awarded under Section 140. It is clarified that the amount awarded under Section 140 shall be retainable by the claimant. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/