Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 133 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gh. Mohd.

2001-07-11

A.M.MIR

body2001
1. The simple question arising out of these three appeals which are directed against a common Award is as to whether or not a Court can grant additional compensation to the victims in terms of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) when compensation under section 140 of the Act has already been granted. 2. According to Mr. Choudhary, appearing for the appellant-Company, it is either of the provisions which can be invoked and not both. He has put whole of his reliance on section 163-B of the Act which reads as under:-"163-B. Option to file claim in certain cases. Where a person is entitled to claim compensation under section 140 and section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both. 3. The Act, is a Social Welfare Legislation which apart from a claim which can be preferred under common law, makes room for additional benefits. Section 163-A provides for one of such additional benefits. The claims which can be made under section 140 are no fault claims where one made in terms of section 163-A may be a fault claim. 4. The use of a non-obstentee clause toward its beginning makes it clear that this statute has empowered the Court to extend the benefit of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act to the victims of death/permanent disablement in addition to the claim granted in terms of section 140 of the Act. The concept of no fault liability enshrined under section 140 of the Act is distinguishable from the liability which can be fixed in terms of 163-A. This distinction has been cleared by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors (2001 (1) Supreme Court 5) in the following words:- "20. "No Fault Liability" envisaged in section 140 of the MV Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the former the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the Rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. The provisions of the M V Act permits that compensation paid under no fault liability can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, these two are resting on two different premises. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even apart from Section 140 of the MV Act, a victim in an accident which occurred while using a motor vehicle, is entitled to get compensation from a Tribunal unless any one of the exceptions would apply. The Tribunal and the High Court have, therefore, gone into error in divesting the claimants of the compensation payable to them". 5. This judgment read in the light of express provision of the statute do not leave me in any doubt that there are no fetters on the powers of the Court to grant statutory relief in terms of 163-A of the Act in addition to what has been granted in terms of section 140 of the Act. As far the bar created by section 163-B is concerned, it is a bar for the applicants and not for Courts. Therefore, I find that the Court is within its powers to grant a relief under section 163-A, in addition to what it can grant under section 140 unless the case is covered by one of the exceptions. That being the answer of the question, I dismiss the appeals. No order as to costs.