Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1028 (PNJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Tula Ram

2002-10-08

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment M. M. Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dismissing the objection of the petitioner with regard to framing of an issue regarding the liability of insurance company on the basis of objection raised by it in its written statement. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents have filed a claim petition under sec. 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the 1988 act) in order to make a claim on the basis of structured formula given in the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended in 1994, which is aimed at expeditious and quick relief to claimants so that the long drawn procedure on the basis of the detailed evidence is avoided. The basic object of incorporating section 163-A appears to be that the claimants-respondents would not be required to furnish proof with regard to committing any fault. It is also clear that on the basis of the structured formula envisaged under sec. 163-A read with Second Schedule, the claimants would be able to avoid long drawn litigation and consequent delay in the payment of compensation. Therefore, no specific issue is required to be framed because the scheme of sec. 163-A is an alternative to determination of compensation on no fault basis. 3. The proposition of law which falls for the consideration of this court is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC ). Their Lordships of the Supreme court in Hansrajbhai V. Kodalas case after detailed discussion has laid down the following principles applicable to cases where the compensation is claimed under sec. 163-A: " (1) There is no specific provision in the Act to the effect that such compensation is in addition to the compensation payable under the Act. Wherever the legislature wanted to provide additional compensation, it has done so [sections 140 and 141]. (2) In case where compensation is paid on no fault liability under secs. 140 and 161 in case of hit and run motor accidents, the legislature has provided adjustment or refund of the said compensation in the case where compensation is determined and payable under the award on the basis of fault liability under sec. (2) In case where compensation is paid on no fault liability under secs. 140 and 161 in case of hit and run motor accidents, the legislature has provided adjustment or refund of the said compensation in the case where compensation is determined and payable under the award on the basis of fault liability under sec. 168 of the Act. There is no such procedure for the refund or adjustment of compensation paid where the compensation is paid under section 163-A. (3) The words under any other law for the time being in force would certainly have different meaning from the words under this Act or under any other provision of this Act. (4) In view of the non obstante clause notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions of section 163-A would exclude determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability. (5) The procedure of giving compensation under sec. 163-A is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed for awarding compensation under fault liability. Under sec. 163-A compensation is awarded without the proof of any fault while for getting compensation on the basis of fault liability the claimant is required to prove wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned. (6) Award of compensation under sec. 163-A 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 sec. 168. The object was to avoid delay in determination of compensation. " (Emphasis added) 4. When the above-mentioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the Tribunal has not acted in accordance with the provisions of sec. 163-A because the claimants-respondents are not required to prove rash and negligent driving as is directed to be done by the Tribunal by framing issue No.1. The requirement of law under section 163-A would be that there should be admission with regard to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle which should result in death or permanent disablement, then on the basis of the calculation given in Second Schedule, compensation is to be awarded. 5. The issue Nos.1 and 2 framed by the tribunal are also not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 5. The issue Nos.1 and 2 framed by the tribunal are also not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 163-A. A perusal of the issues framed by the Tribunal creates an impression as if the petition had been filed under sec. 166 of the 1988 Act. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal dated 20.11.2000 is set aside and a direction is issued to proceed with the framing of issues in accordance with the provisions of sec. 163-A of the Act and the law laid down in Hansrajbhai V. Kodalas case, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC ). The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Orders accordingly.