Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Aggrieved by these awards, Insurance Company preferred appeals to this Court. Finding unable to agree with the two Single Bench judgments of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar 1995(2) GLR 1111 rendered by J.M. Panchal J. and Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai v. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak 1998(2) GLR 1199 by M.S. Shah J., learned Single Judge (Coram: D.H. Waghela J.), after considering various provisions of the M.V. Act, recorded in paragraph-7 that:

In light of the above discussion, I humbly find myself unable to subscribe to the view taken by this Court (Coram: J.M. Panchal, J.) in 1995 (2) GLR 1111 and (Coram: M.S. Shah, J.) in 1998 (2) GLR 1199 and propose to refer the matter to a larger bench under Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 with a request to have the appeals listed before a Division Bench or, if thought fit, considering the possibility of dissent, to a larger bench as expeditiously as possible. It is important to have the decision of a larger bench at the earliest in view of pendency of thousands and thousands of claim petitions in the State, the awards in which may be carried in appeal to this Court and the possibility of the procedure being adopted at present by the Claims Tribunal being held to be vitiated. The office shall place this matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

5. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that application under Section 140 is not maintainable independent of Section 166, it is interim in nature and compensation has to be adjusted against the award passed on merits under Section 166. It is also contended that while deciding the application under Section 140, defences available to Insurance Company can be raised before the Tribunal. In case application under Section 140 is maintainable independent of Section 166, the same be tried on merits giving opportunity to raise defences available to it and dispose of the same, otherwise, Insurance Company will be fastened with liability without being heard in the matter. With a view to support his submissions, reliance is placed on Bishan Devi and Ors. v. Sirbaksh Singh and Anr. , Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jethu Ram and Ors. , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maganlal Hirabhai Patel and Ors. , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dinanath Agrawala and Ors. AIR 2000 Orissa 40, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai and Ors. , Andhavarapu Kamaraju v. Thammineni Seetharam and Ors. , The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Lakshmamma and Ors. , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. , Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004(2) GLR 1597 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. 2000 ACJ 721.

6. Learned M.T.M. Hakim, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that application under Section 140 is maintainable independently of application under Section 166. They can file application under Section 140 alone and may not file application under Section 166. They may file applications under Section 140 and Section 166 simultaneously. In application under Section 140, Insurance Company cannot seek trial of defences as if it is application under Section 166. However, when applications are preferred under both Sections, no fault compensation awarded in application under Section 140 can be adjusted against compensation awarded under Section 166. Where no fault compensation is awarded against the Insurance Company, it can seek reimbursement from the owner but there is no reimbursement from the claimant. Reliance is placed on Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh and Ors. , New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad v. Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar and Ors. 1995(2) GLR 1111, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhajnoo and Anr. , Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai v. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathan and Anr. 1998(2) GLR 1199, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dinanath Agrawalla and Ors. , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarju Ram and Ors. , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Fida Hussain and Anr. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Babubhai Purshottambhai Harijan and Ors. (First Appeal No. 133 of 2006) decided on 24.01.2006.

24. Having taken the bull by horns, conclusions irresistible may be summarized. Section 140 (Chapter X)) provides for fixed sum of compensation in cases of no fault liability. It is independent of Section 161 (payment of compensation in cases of hit and run motor accidents), Section 163-A (payment of compensation on structured formula basis/fault liability " Chapter XI) and Section 166 (fault liability " Chapter XII). Application for compensation under Section 140 is maintainable without there being application for compensation under Section 163-A or under Section 166 and disposable accordingly, and compensation awarded shall be final. But, where two applications are filed under Section 140 and 163-A or under Section 140 and under Section 166, compensation awarded under Section 140 shall be reduced from the amount of compensation awarded under Section 163-A or under Section 166 provided the compensation awarded under the latter provisions are higher, otherwise, compensation paid under Section 140 would be final. Further, where claim is preferred only under Section 140 and not any other provision, compensation awarded under Section 140 shall be final. Section 140 does not provide for interim/ad-hoc compensation because compensation paid under this Section is final. `Interim/ad-hoc compensation' is used when apart from application under Section 140 there is also application under Section 163-A or under Section 166, since the amount of compensation paid under Section 140 is made deductible. Where in addition to application for compensation under Section 140 there is application under other provisions on principle of fault liability, application under Section 140 shall be disposed of in the first place, since expeditious disposal of application under Section 140 is the basic theme of this beneficial piece of legislation. But, where claimant has filed application under Section 140, but not under any other provision claiming compensation on fault liability principle, application is maintainable and compensation awardable, but not recoverable from the claimant. The insurance company is not entitled to seek trial on merit of any legal defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act. Remedy of insurance company is against the owner of the vehicle invoking defences available to it, but not against the claimant. Law laid down by this Court in Munshiram D. Anand v. Pravinsinh Prabhatsinh Anand Society, Navagamgedh, Jamnagar (Coram: S.D. Shah J.) , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maganlal Hirabhai Patel and Ors. (S.D. Shah J.) , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mithakhan Dinakhan Notiyar (Coram: J.M. Panchal J.) 1995(2) GLR 1111, Mahendrakumar Kalyanjibhai v. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak (Coram: M.S. Shah J.) 1998(2) GLR 1199 and Division Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Babubhai Purshottambhai Harijan and Ors (F.A. No. 133 of 2006 with C.A. 527 of 2006) (Coram: Bhawani Singh C.J. and Abhilasha Kumari J.) is correct, contentions to the contrary untenable. Reference is answered accordingly.