Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have been granted relief under Section 140 of the Act for no fault liability and has no power to proceed under Section 163A of the Act and allow further compensation on structured formula basis as per Second Schedule attached to the said provision. His further contention is that provision of Sections 140 and 163A of Motor Vehicles Act deal with one and the same liability on no fault basis and because of the specific bar created by Section 163B, it is legally inconceivable that the Tribunal can grant relief under both the provisions.

4. For appreciating the rival contentions, it would be necessary to look into the relevant provisions of Sections 140, 141 and 163A of Motor Vehicles Act and the language used in the provisions so as to understand its true import for determining the question involved and the scheme for payment of compensation under the Act. Sections 140 to 143 provide for liability of the owner of the vehicle in the case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle or motor vehicles to pay compensation without any pleading or establishing that the death or the permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. By way of earliest relief, victim is entitled to get fixed amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000 in case of death and Rs. 25,000 in case of permanent disablement. It is further provided that the claim 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. Sub-section (5) of Section 140 upon which much emphasis has been laid by learned advocate appearing for appellant insurance company, requires consideration which, inter alia, provides that the owner of the vehicle is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force. The word 'also' indicates that the owner of the vehicle would be additionally liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force. Proviso to Sub-section (5) further clarifies that the amount of compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force is to be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under Sub-section (2) or under Section 163A. This is further crystallised in Section 141, which provides that right to claim compensation under Section 140 is in addition to any other right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability. Further Section 141(1) also makes it abundantly clear that right to claim compensation under Section 140 is in addition to the right to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of the Act or under any other law for the time being in force. From the provision of the aforesaid sections, one aspect is abundantly clear that right to claim compensation on the basis of no fault liability under Section 140 is in addition to the right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability or right to claim compensation under any other law.

7. Compensation under Section 140 of the Act is in the nature of no fault liability and its grant under Section 163A on the basis of structured formula is final and not an interim compensation, is the view expressed by a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in case titled Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation, 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka). This distinction has been cleared by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC), in the following words:

"In view of the non obstante clause notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions of Section 163A would exclude the determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability.
Award of compensation under Section 163A is on predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims and that formula itself is based on criteria similar to determining the compensation under Section 168. The object was to avoid delay in determination of compensation."

It is clearly deducible from the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court that any law which pertains to and determines the measure of damages to be awarded is a substantive law. It is more so when the compensation so determined by the provision is to the exclusion of all other provisions contained in the Act. Therefore, this Section determines the right of the parties finally. The only power provided for exercising an option in the matter for which claim petition for compensation is to be found in Section 163B which states, that a person is entitled to claim compensation under Sections 140 and 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said Sections and not under both. There is, however, no prohibition in any of the provision of the Act from switching over the claim made under Sections 166 to 163A provided the accident had taken place on 14.11.1994 or thereafter because Section 163A came on the statute book only with effect from 14.11.1994, subject of course to claimants satisfying other requirements indicated in the Second Schedule. Explanation appended to Section 165 states that, for removal of doubts, the claim for compensation includes the claim under Section 140 as well as under Section 163A. Section 163A was introduced as a new provision. While Section 140 deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Further, under Section 140(5), the owner is made liable to pay compensation under Section 140 in addition to compensation he may be made liable to pay under any other law.