Section 163B prohibits claiming compensation under Section 163A after electing remedies under Sections 140 and 166.

The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Bhudev Prasad, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated July 31, 2017, which dismissed their claim for ₹2,00,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’)

On February 16, 2015, the deceased’s motorcycle collided with the rear of a parked Tempo

The claimants alleged the Tempo was parked in the middle of the road without indicators in total darkness

However, the MACT found that negligence by the Tempo driver was not proven and granted only ₹50,000/- under Section 140 (no-fault liability)

In the appeal, the claimants further sought to alternatively treat the petition under Section 163A of the MV Act

1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent parking of the offending Tempo or if the deceased was solely responsible due to high speed and lack of care

2. Whether a claim petition filed under Section 166 can be converted to or treated as one under Section 163A of the MV Act after the claimant has already received compensation under Section 140

The Court applied Section 166 of the MV Act regarding fault-based liability and Section 140 regarding interim no-fault liability

It emphasized Section 163B of the MV Act, which mandates that a claimant entitled to compensation under both Section 140 and Section 163A must choose one and cannot claim under both

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004), which established that Section 163A provides a final determination based on a structured formula and that Section 163B prohibits simultaneous or successive claims under both no-fault liability provisions

The Court found that the testimony of the eyewitness (PW2) actually undermined the claimants’ case, revealing the deceased was speeding (overtaking at 50-60 kmph), not wearing a helmet, and swerved into the parked Tempo to avoid an oncoming vehicle

The Site Plan corroborated that there was sufficient ambient light from nearby red lights and enough space on the carriageway for the deceased to have avoided the Tempo had he been driving at a controllable speed

Regarding the alternative plea for Section 163A benefits, the Court held that because the claimants had already elected to pursue the claim under Section 166 and had specifically accepted compensation under Section 140, Section 163B acted as a statutory bar against switching to Section 163A

The Court noted that Section 140 is an interim measure for fault-based claims, whereas Section 163A is a final alternative mechanism

The Court held that the deceased’s own negligence in speeding and swerving was the cause of the accident

Furthermore, the request to treat the petition under Section 163A was rejected as the claimants had already exhausted their election of remedies by accepting compensation under Section 140 and pursuing Section 166

The award of ₹50,000/- under no-fault liability remained undisturbed