Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nathu Ram And Ors. on 15 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ499, 1999WLC(RAJ)UC185
JUDGMENT D.C. Dalela, J.
1. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alwar, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called, 'the Act'), for the alleged loss suffered by them on account of death of Taradevi, who died in the accident that took place on 16.3.96. Along with the claim petition, the claimants also filed an application under Section 163A of the Act, for interim compensation. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver and owner of the motor cycle in question, which was insured with the petitioner insurance company. The learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.11.1996, awarded a compensation of Rs. 99,300 in favour of the claimants, as interim compensation, under Section 163A of the Act. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been preferred.
2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award interim compensation under Section 163A of the Act.
Sections 165 to 168 of the Act provide that a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon the claim for compensation, in respect of the accident, involving death or bodily injury arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and/or damage to any property of the third party, on the basis of fault, negligence or any wrongful act of the owner or/and driver of the vehicle. For the purposes of such adjudication, it is required to hold an inquiry into the claim and to make award, determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just. The liability to pay compensation would be of the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle, as may be directed by the Tribunal.
4. In addition to the claim of compensation as above, the claimant has a right to claim compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement, on the principle of 'no fault' under Section 140 of the Act.
5. The claimant has also a right under Section 163A of the Act, to claim compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Act, in the case of death or permanent disablement, without pleading or proving any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or the driver.
6. Section 163B of the Act provides that where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Sections 140 and 163A of the Act, he would file a claim under either of the sections and not under both.
7. Section 141 of the Act provides that the right to claim compensation under Section 140, would be in addition to any other right (based on principle of fault), except the right under Section 163A of the Act. From Sections 163A and 141 of the Act, it is amply clear that compensations, awardable under Sections 140 and 163A are alternative to each other. One may claim compensation either under Section 140 or under Section 163A. One cannot claim under both the sections, namely, Section 140 as well as Section 163A. Therefore, the right to claim compensation under Section 163A is an alternative to one provided under Section 140. Like the claim under Section 140, the claim under Section 163A, is in addition to the right to claim compensation under Sections 165 to 168 of the Act.
8. Under Section 140 as well as under Section 163A, compensation is awardable on the principle of 'no fault', because, under Section 163A also the claimant is not required to plead and prove the fault, neglect or wrongful act of the owner/ driver.
9. The compensation awardable under Section 140 is certainly an interim compensation. Therefore, the compensation awardable under Section 163A is in the nature of interim compensation. The amount may be adjusted against the total amount of compensation awarded under Sections 165 to 168 of the Act.
10. The Explanation to Section 165 clearly declares that the claim of compensation required to be adjudicated upon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, includes the claim for compensation under Sections 140 and 163A of the Act. Thus, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate and award interim compensation under Section 163A of the Act.
11. In the case of U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out certain defects and deficiencies into the Second Schedule of the Act. Yet, it has held that the Schedule can be used as guidelines. The learned Tribunal, in the instant case in hand, has assessed and calculated the compensation on the basis of the guidelines provided in the Second Schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any defect in the assessment and calculation done by the learned Tribunal.
12. The petition does not seem to have any force. Hence, it is dismissed.