Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Daya Rani And Ors. on 23 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003ACJ2053, (2003)134PLR447, AIR 2003 (NOC) 531 (P&H), 2003 A I H C 2778, (2003) 2 PUN LR 447, (2003) 3 TAC 503, (2003) 2 RECCIVR 658, (2003) 3 ACC 79, (2003) 3 ACJ 2053, (2003) 4 CIVLJ 324
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company, against the award dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and seeking the setting aside of the order dated 14.5.2001, dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner.
2. In the petition, it was alleged that a motor vehicular accident had taken place, on the night intervening 27/28,5.1997, resulting in the death of Jai Bhagwan deceased. This accident had taken place between two vehicles involved in the accident. It was alleged that the claim petition was filed by Smt. Daya Rani widow of Jai Bhagwan and Smt. Shamo Devi mother of Jai Bhagwan deceased, seeking the grant of compensation for the death of Jai Bhagwan deceased. The petitioner-Insurance Company filed written statement and denied the accident in question and it was alleged that even if the accident had taken place, it was due to rash and negligent driving of Jai Bhagwan deceased, who was driving one of the vehicle at the time of accident. It was alleged that in the said petition, one of the issues framed was as to whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle, resulting in the death of Jai Bhagwan. It was alleged that while deciding the claim petition, it was found by the Tribunal that this issue was not happily worded and that the only thing required to be seen in the said petition was that as to whether the death of Jai Bhagwan had occurred in the use of a motor vehicle and that the proof of negligence was not required to be seen, while granting compensation and it was also not material as to whether the accident had taken place on account of the fault and negligence of Jai Bhagwan himself or someone else. It was alleged that thereupon the Tribunal gave the award in the sum of Rs,3,24,000/-, as compensation. It was further alleged that in fact, in respect of the aforesaid accident, five claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal and the same were decided by the Tribunal on the same date. It was alleged that in the remaining four claim petitions, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, as it was a head-on collusion. It was alleged that in the present case the Tribunal had held that the question of negligence was not required to be determined. It was alleged that while doing so, the Tribunal had mis-interpreted the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged that against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, Civil Revision No. 36l of 2000 was filed in this Court, challenging the aforesaid award dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Tribunal. It was alleged that the said revision petition Carrie up for hearing on 12.2.2001 and the case was remanded back. It was alleged that after the decision of this Court, the petitioner-Insurance Company moved before the Tri bunal in the light of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 361 of 2000 and prayed for the review of the order. It was alleged that the Tribunal wrongly dis missed the review application. It was alleged that the Tribunal had passed the contradictory awards, in the various petitions arising out of the same accident, inasmuch as in four claim petitions, it was held that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles and that they were equally responsible, whereas these findings had not been recorded in the claim petition in question. It was accordingly prayed that the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal should be set aside.
3. Notice of motion was issued. In this case, respondent No. 1 and 2 are the contesting respondent, being the: claimants in the claim petition in question? As per the ffice report, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had refused to accept notices and they were served by affixation of the notices at their houses. No one had come present on behalf of respon dents No. 1 and 2. Hence, proceeded against exparte.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submitted before me that the Tribunal was not empowered to pass two contradictory awards in respect of the same vehicle, or accident However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company. Admittedly, the claim petition in the present case was filed by the claimants namely, Smt. Daya Rani and Smt. Shamo Devi widow and mother of Jai Bhagwan deceased under Section 163-A of the Act, So far as other four claim petitions arising out of the same accident are concerned, admittedly those petitions were filed by the claimants in those cases under Section 166 of the, Act.
The learned Tribunal, Karnal, vide award dated 13.9.2000, a copy of which has been at tached by the petitioner along with the present petition, had decided the petition, which was a petition under Section 163-A of the Act and had awarded Rs. 3,24,000/- as the compensation to be paid to the claimants for the death of Jai Bhagwan deceased in the accident in question. It was held that the respondents in the said petition namely, Hari Om Malhotra, being the owner and driver and National Insurance Company being the insurer would be liable to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. While deciding the said petition, it was found by the learned Tribunal that since it was a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants were entitled to re ceive the entire amount of compensation without considering the amount as to whether the accident in question had taken place on account of the fault and negligence of Jai Bhagwan deceased himself or on account of fault and negligence of someone else in the said accident. A copy of the other award dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Tribunal, decid ing the other 4 claim petitions of the claimants arising out of the same accident, has also been attached by the petitioner-Insurance Company with the present petition. A perusal of the said award dated 13.9.2000 would show that vide said award dated 13.9.2000 the learned Tribunal had decided the four claim petitions which had been instituted under Section. 166 of the Act. While giving the said award, it was found by the Tribunal that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for causing accident in ques tion because it was a head on collusion between the two vehicles, 'Since these were the petitions under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal was required to determine the ques tion of negligence, besides determining the question of quantum etc.
6. Aggrieved against the award dated 13.9.200, given by the Tribunal in the present case under Section 163-A of the Act, the National Insurance Company had filed Revi sion petition No. 361 of 2000 in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of In dia, challenging the validity of the said award. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 22.2.2001 with the observation that the Insurance Company may make an application before the Tribunal highlighting about the alleged contradiction in the two awards (dated 13.9.2000) arising from the same accident and it was for the Tribunal to consider as to whether it would like to review the impugned or der or not. It was observed that the petitioner-Insurance Company would be permitted to take all the pleas before the Tribunal which have been taken by it in the said revision petition. It was further observed that in the event of being not satisfied with the order that may be passed by the Tribunal, it would be open to the Insurance Company to ap proach this Court again for the redressal of its grouse. In pursuance of the aforesaid or der passed by this Court, the Insurance Company filed review petition before the Tribu nal- The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 14.5.2001, a copy of which has been at tached alongwith the present petition, dismissed the said review petition holding that the award dated 13.9.2000 was passed in this case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of and also the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. Aggrieved against this order dated 14.5.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present revision petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. As referred to above, the present petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act, whereas the claimants in the remaining four claim petitions had filed the petitions under Section 166 of the Act. Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act read as under:-
"163. A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorising insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."
"166. Application for compensation.- (i) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury:or
(b) by the owner of the property:or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be;
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the applicant.
(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
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.
(4) The claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub -Section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act."
8. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that the scope of the provisions of Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act is entirely different under Section 163-A(1) of the Act, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be. It is further provided under Section 163-A(2) of the Act that in any claim for compensation under sub Section (I) the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or other persons. It would be clear that under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish the fault on the part of the respondents in the claim petition. On the other hand, under Section 166 of the Act, the petition for compensation arising out of an accident could be filed by the person who had sustained the injury and by all or any legal representative of the deceased. It would also be clear that if any such petition is filed, the same shall be decided by the Tribunal, in accordance with law, which would include the question regarding negligence as well However, the question regarding negligence is not required to be pleaded or proved under Section 163-A of the Act.
9. It was for the aforesaid reasons that the Tribunal gave two separate awards dated 13.9.2000. One award was given in the present petition under Section 163-A of the Act, where the claimants were not required to plead and prove the question regarding negligence. The other award was given by the Tribunal while disposing of the other claim petitions which were filed under Section 166 of the Act, in which the question regarding negligence was pleaded and was required to be decided by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the award dated 13.9.2000 given by the Tribunal concerning the present petition. I am further of the opinion, that the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner-insurance Company especially when the learned Tribunal had considered the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act even at the time when the award dated 13.9.2000 was passed by the learned Tribunal in the present petition. As referred above, the scope of petitions filed under Section 163-A of the Act and under Section 166 of the Act is entirely different and for this reason the Tribunal is empowered to give separate awards in separate petitions under such circumstances even though those petitions may arise out of the same accident.
10. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.