Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In Hansrajbhai v. Kodala case (supra) it is held that determination of compensation under structured formula under Section 163-A is in the alternative and not in addition to the determination of compensation under Section 168 on principle of fault liability, which means determination of compensation under Section 163A and Section 168 are independent of each other and compensation determined under either of them is final, meaning thereby, claimant cannot resort to fault liability compensation after having got compensation under either of the two provisions. The Court further holds that legislature did not provide for additional compensation under Section 163A or under Section 168, like it did under Sections 140. In case of hit and run motor accidents under Section 161, there is provision for adjustment or refund of compensation on determination of fault liability award under Section 168 of the Act. There is no procedure for refund or adjustment of compensation paid under Section 163A. In paragraph 15, the Apex Court said:

15. The aforesaid conclusion gets support from the language used in Sections 140, 141, 161 and 163A. Sections 140 to 143 provide for liability of the owner of the vehicle in case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles to pay compensation without any pleading or establishing that death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles. By way of earliest relief, victim is entitled to get the 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 such 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 has occurred. Sub-section (5) of Section 140 upon which much reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Insurance Companies as well as the claimants requires consideration and interpretation, which inter alia provides that 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. The 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 crystalized 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 and specifically excludes the right to claim compensation under the scheme referred to in Section 163A. Section 163B also provides that where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A, he can file the claim under either of the said sections, but not under both. Similarly, Section 141(1) also crystalises 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 any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (2) further provides that if the claimant has filed an application for compensation under Section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault liability, the claim for compensation under Section 140 is to be disposed of in the first place and as provided in Sub-section (3) the amount received under Sub-section (2) of Section 140 is to be adjusted while paying the compensation on the principle of fault liability. On the basis of fault liability if additional amount is required to be paid then the claimant is entitled to get the same but there is no provision for refund of the amount received under Section 140(2), even if the Claims Tribunal arrives at the conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to get any compensation on the principle of fault liability. Further, Section 144 gives overriding effect to the provisions made under Chapter X by providing that the provisions of the chapter shall have effect notwithstanding any thing contained in any provision of the Act or of any other law for the time being in force. From 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 get compensation under any other law. Such amount is required to be reduced from the amount payable under the fault liability or compensation which may be received under any other law. If nothing is payable under the Act then the claimant is not required to refund the amount received by him. As against this, there is specific departure in the scheme envisaged for paying compensation under Section 163A. Section 163A nowhere provides that this payment of compensation on no fault liability on the basis of structured formula is in addition to the liability to pay compensation in accordance with the right to get compensation on the principle of fault liability and unless otherwise provided for the same cause, compensation cannot be paid again.

Provisions for refund of compensation if compensation is received under any other law or under the Act:

Further, in paragraph-16, it has been held that:
16. Further, as the legislature has not provided for refund or adjustment of compensation received under the Act and compensation payable under Section 163A, it would mean that Scheme of payment of compensation under Section 163A is in alternative to determination of compensation under Section 168. As stated above, Sections 140(5) and 141(3) make provisions for reduction of compensation paid under Section 140. Under proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 140, the amount of such compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive under any other law is required to be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under Section 140 or under Section 163A. Under Section 141(3), if a person gets the compensation on principle of fault liability, then also provision is made for adjustment of compensation received under Section 140. There is no such provision for adjustment of compensation received under Section 163A from the compensation receivable under the Act on the principle of fault. Similarly, Section 161 provides for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents. Under Section 161(3), in cases in respect of the death of any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- is to be paid as compensation and in case of grievous hurt, the amount fixed is Rs. 12,500/-. Thereafter, under Section 162, the legislature has provided for refund of compensation paid under Section 161 on the principle of hit and run motor accident by providing that the payment of compensation under Section 161 shall be subject to the condition that if any compensation is awarded under any other provision of this Act or any other law or otherwise, so much amount as is equal to the compensation paid under Section 161 is required to be adjusted or refunded to the insurer. Under Section 162(2), duty is cast on the Tribunal, Court or other authority awarding such compensation to verify as to whether in respect of such death or bodily injury, compensation has already been paid under Section 161 and to make adjustment as required thereunder. Result is claimant is not entitled to have additional compensation but at the same time he can proceed by filing application under Section 165 or under the Workmen Compensation Act (i.e. other law) and if he gets compensation under either of the said provisions, the amount paid under Section 161 is to be refunded or adjusted.

Use of different words such as any other law, under this section any other law for the time being in force, provisions of this Act or any other provision of this Act in different sections:

Question whether application under Section 140 is maintainable independent of application under Section 166 did not come for consideration in this case.

12. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni case (supra) the Apex Court approved Hansrajbhai Kodala case (supra) to the extent amongst others that compensation payable on structured formula basis under Section 163A is final and cannot be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It disapproves to the extent Hansrajbhai Kodala (supra) treats the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- as a cap for calculation under Section 163A. With regard to Sections 140 and 163A, the Court said in paragraph-43 to 48 that: