Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kandavalli Laxmi Rajeswari And Ors. on 21 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2004)ACC116, 2005ACJ1748, 2004(1)ALT516, 2003 A I H C 4142, (2004) 2 ACC 116, (2004) 1 ANDH LT 516, (2005) ACJ 1748, (2003) 2 ANDHWR 394
JUDGMENT G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. C.M.A.No. 2323 of 2002 is preferred against the order in O.P.No. 54 of 1994, dated 17-03-1999, while C.M.A.No. 3387 of 2002 is preferred against the order in O.P.No. 89 of 1994, dated 29-06-1998, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.
2. Both the petitions arose out of the same accident.
3. O.P.No. 54 of 1994 is the case of death whereas O.P.No. 89 of 1994 is the case of injuries.
4. When the claimants in both the O.Ps., made petitions under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 13,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively under various heads making the appellant liable to pay along with the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident. There was a collision between two motor vehicles; one vehicle is insured with the appellant and the other with the 6th and 7th respondents respectively.
5. The appellant preferred these appeals on the ground that the tribunal failed to make the 6th and 7th respondents equally liable to pay no-fault liability compensation. He, therefore, requested this Court to make the 6th and 7th respondents liable to pay half of the no-fault liability compensation payable to the respective claimants and to permit the appellant to pay only the balance fault-liability compensation to the claimants.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to Sections-140 and 141 Clause (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 140 of the Act reads as follows:
"Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault:--
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount to compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any personal shall be fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
(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." Section 141 of the Act reads as follows:
"Provisions as to other right to claim compensation for death or permanent disablement:--
(1) The right to claim compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right, except the right to claim under the scheme referred to Section 163-A (such other right hereafter) in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under Section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Section 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under Section 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and--
(a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first-mentioned compensation) only so much of the second-mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first-mentioned compensation;
(b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant also relied on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S.V. Balakrishna , wherein the learned single Judge while considering the aspect of 'no-fault liability' compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that when an accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles even if it is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of one of the vehicles, the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident are jointly and severally liable to pay no-fault liability compensation. The learned single judge made the above observation in the appeal preferred against the order of the tribunal in a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Act, 1939.
8. After carefully going through the language employed in Section 140, it is clear that the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident shall be liable to pay the no-fault liability compensation jointly and severally. The very object of introducing Section 140 of the Act is to render financial assistance to the victim's family at the earliest point of time and it is in the form of an interim relief to the claimants to sustain till they get the compensation under fault liability after long process of adjudication. It was also provided under Section 140 of the Act that as it is not possible, immediately after the accident, to ascertain as to the driver of which vehicle was at fault, in order to avoid each party shifting the burden on the other, the framers of the Act felt that it would be expedient, just and convenient if the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident are jointly and severally made liable to pay no-fault liability compensation. However, when once the stage of no-fault liability compensation is over, the process of adjudication of the claim for compensation under fault-liability starts. If the tribunal comes to a conclusion that the driver of a particular vehicle, out of the two vehicles involved in the accident, is responsible for causing the accident, the owner of that particular vehicle will be vicariously made liable to pay the compensation and if there is valid insurance coverage to the said vehicle, the insurer would be made liable to pay the compensation along with the owner of the vehicle with joint and several liability. In such situation, the question of making the owner of the other vehicle liable to pay a share in no-fault liability compensation does not arise. In my considered view, it would be unjust to fasten the liability on the owner of the vehicle, which was not responsible for causing the accident, to pay half of no-fault liability compensation, which is nothing but imposing a kind of burden on a person who did not commit any fault. When once the tribunal holds that a particular owner is liable for payment under fault liability at the final adjudication of the matter, giving a direction to the owner of the opposite vehicle to share the burden of no-fault liability is like passing an interim order at the time of passing the final order. I, therefore, respectfully differ with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of this court in the decision mentioned above.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Section 141 the no-fault liability shall be shared between the owners of two vehicles.
10. After carefully going through Section 141 Clause (3), with due respect, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. The wording of Section 141 Clause (3) is only a kind of clarification regarding the liability of the owner under fault-liability and no-fault liability and to avoid any kind of scope for the claimants to claim that they are entitled to the entire fault-liability compensation irrespective of the amount of compensation awarded under no-fault liability.
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the event of the tribunal awarding no-fault liability compensation at the initial stage of the proceedings directing the owners of both vehicles to share the no-fault liability burden, and after fixing the fault liability on the owner of one vehicle, in the final adjudication, whether the owner of the other vehicle is entitled to recover his share of amount paid towards no-fault liability compensation.
12. I have already mentioned in the foregoing discussion that the question of awarding no-fault liability compensation by the tribunal at the stage of final adjudication for fault liability compensation does not arise. In the event of awarding no-fault liability compensation at the initial stage and sharing by the owners of both vehicles, the question of recovering the amount from the owner of vehicle, responsible for causing the accident, does not arise when the proceedings under no-fault liability ended and no further claim for fault liability against such owner of the vehicle is made.
13. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.