Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Golepu Chandramouli And Ors. vs G. Sreesailam And Anr. on 4 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)ALD69
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The unfortunate death of one Golepu Shiva Kumar and his minor son, by name Uma Shankar, gave raise to filing of several claim petitions by different parties, obviously, under the imperfect advice tendered by the legal practitioners concerned, and ultimately had resulted in denial of compensation.
2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as under:
Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents, 3rd appellant is the wife and appellants 4 and 5 are the children of Golepu Shiva Kumar. While Shiva Kumar and his family members were travelling in an Ambassador Car bearing No. ADL 8510, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, on 6-7-1997, it met with an accident at the early hours. Shiva Kumar and his minor son-Uma Shankar died.
3. The third appellant filed O.P. Nos. 719 and 720 of 1997 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, for payment of compensation under 'no fault liability', on account of the death of her minor son and husband. While O.P. No. 720 of 1997 was allowed on 19-2-1998 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as compensation, O.P. No. 719 of 1997 was dismissed. The second respondent, the insurer, filed C.M.A. No. 2359 of 2000 against the order and decree in O.P. No. 720 of 1997.
4. All the appellants herein filed O.P. No. 556 of 1997, under Section 166 of the Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, claiming compensation, on account of the death of late Shiva Kumar. Before the same Tribunal, the third appellant filed O.P. No. 523 of 1997 under Section 140 of the Act, for compensation, on account of the death of her minor son. This O.P. was nothing but the replication of O.P. No. 719 of 1997 on the file of the Tribunal at Kadapa. The Tribunal at Mahaboobnagar dismissed O.P. Nos. 523 and 556 of 1997, through its judgment, dated 13-7-2004. This C.M.A. is directed against the dismissal of O.P. No. 556 of 1997.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. As observed earlier, the appellants became victims of the imperfect and improper advice. The third appellant alone filed O.P. Nos. 719 and 720 of 1997, before the Tribunal at Kadapa, claiming compensation under Section 140 of the Act, on account of the death of her minor son and husband respectively. Out of them, O.P. No. 720 of 1997 alone was allowed and O.P. No. 719 of 1997 was dismissed. She repeated the same exercise before the Tribunal at Mahaboobnagar by filing O.P. No. 523 of 1997, as regards the compensation, on account of the death of her minor son. No exception can be taken to the dismissal of O.P. No. 523 of 1997. At the most, it can be left open to the third appellant to prefer an appeal against the order and decree in O.P. No. 719 of 1997 passed by the Tribunal at Kadapa, if she is so advised.
7. Dismissal of O.P. No. 556 of 1997 was solely on the ground that the third appellant claimed compensation for the death of Shiva Kumar in O.P. No. 720 of 1997 before the Tribunal at Kadapa. However, it must be borne in mind that the said O.P. was filed under Section 140 of the Act, whereas O.P. No. 556 of 1997 was filed under Section 166 of the Act. It cannot be said that there was any contradiction in terms or that one excludes in the other. A perusal of Sections 140 and 166 of the Act makes this clear.
8. Section 140 imposes liability upon the owner and insurer of the accident vehicle, to pay compensation, on the principle of no fault. The claimant shall not be required to plead or prove the negligence or fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle. Sub-section (5) thereof makes it amply clear that payment of compensation under no fault liability does not absolve the owner, or the insurer to pay the compensation under any other law, for the time being in force. The provision reads as under:
Section 140(5) : Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Section 163-A.
9. Parliament had taken care to ensure that the amount paid towards no fault liability does not disentitle the claimant from claiming compensation under any other law for the time being in force. Proviso to Sub-section (5) makes it clear that in the event of any higher amount of compensation being paid under any other law, the compensation paid or payable under Section 140 or 163-A, shall be deducted. The expression "any other law for the time being in force" is wide, in its purport. This, not only takes in its fold, the other enactments, such as Workmen's Compensation Act, but also the other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, such as Section 166.
10. Section 141 of the Act, in clear terms, lays down that right to claim compensation under Section 140 of the Act shall be in addition to the right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability. Further, the fact that the claim made under Section 140 does not exclude the claims under other provisions, such as Section 166; is made amply clear through proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 166. It reads as under:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
11. It clearly indicates that claims under Section 140 on the one hand, and Section 166 on the other hand, are not mutually exclusive, but are supplemental to each other. It was so held by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai 2001 (3) ALT 34 (SC).
12. Therefore, the liability for the accident and the quantum of compensation have to be independently determined in O.P. No. 556 of 1997. The only impact of O.P. No. 720 of. 1997 on this would be that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was awarded to the third appellant, must be given credit to, in the ultimate compensation awarded therein, if it is upheld in the CMA filed by the second respondent. There does not exist any justification for dismissal of O.P. No. 556 of 1997, on the sole ground that the third appellant herein had made a claim under Section 140 of the Act.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. It is directed that O.P, No. 556 of 1997 shall be decided on its own merits. The Tribunal shall take note of the fact that the third appellant had already been awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under 'no fault liability' and necessary steps shall be taken for adjustment thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.