Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 386 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Jharna Paul

2002-09-07

B.B.DEB

body2002
B.B. DEB, J.: Heard Mr. A . Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr Samik Deb, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by an order dated 27.8.99 passed by the learned member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura District in case No. Misc. (MAC) No. 104/1998 deciding the prayer of the claimant on 'no-fault liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), the State of Tripura-the owner of the offending vehicle filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition and, according to him, in order to by pass the statutory deposit the petitioner instead of preferring appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act filed this revision petition and as such it should be dismissed in limine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no appeal is permissible to be filed against the order passed under Section 140 of the MV Act on 'no-fault liability' the petitioner rightly filed this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submits to admittedly the term 'award' is not defined under the MV Act and as such any adjudication done by the competent authority in deciding the claim petition including a petition on 'no-fault liability' clause must be termed to be an 'award' for the purpose of Section 173 of the MV Act. In support thereof, he relied upon a decision rendered in Oriental Insurance Company, New Delhi-Vs-Chitaman (FB) ( AIR 1995 MP 229 (FB). 6. Having considered the provision regarding procedure to be followed in deciding a petition under Section 140 of the MV Act, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court taking aid from Section 165 of the MV Act held that any amount of compensation granted under Section 140 of the MV Act is an 'award' like one under Section 168 of the said Act for the purpose of preferring appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act. 7. 7. After careful perusal of the related provision of the MV Act it reveals that the Parliament has not thought it wise to define the term 'award', though with purpose has used the word 'award' in Sections 168 and 173 of the MV Act while deliberately omitted to use the 'award' in Section 140 of the MV Act. Under Section 168 of the MV Act, the tribunal has been empowered to cause enquiry into the claim for compensation laid by any claimant regarding death of his/her kin or for injury for himself and whatever amount the learned tribunal assessed to be a compensation is construed as an 'award'. 8. For better appreciation, the provision of sub-section (i) of Section 168 of the MV Act is reproduced below:- "168. Award of the Claims 'Tribunal - On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the claims tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.(emphasis supplied) Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of' the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X." 9. From the aforequoted provisions, it reveals that whatever amount is assessed by the Tribunal to be paid to the claimant is called 'award' while the 'no-fault liability' benefit has been provided under Section 140 of the MV Act and there so far quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal is not vested with any power to enquire into the matter. From the aforequoted provisions, it reveals that whatever amount is assessed by the Tribunal to be paid to the claimant is called 'award' while the 'no-fault liability' benefit has been provided under Section 140 of the MV Act and there so far quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal is not vested with any power to enquire into the matter. In case of permanent disablement sustained as a result of vehicular accident, the amount is fixed fixed at Rs. 25,000/- while in case of death it is Rs. 50,000/-. There is no scope for the tribunal to assess the compensation and as such the Parliament deliberately omitted the word 'award'. The corresponding provision under the MV Act, 1939 is available under Section 92A. Section 92A is inserted by way of amendment of the MV Act in 1982 whereas the provision for seeking compensation before a tribunal and granting any award of compensation by the tribunal to a person aggrieved pertaining to vehicular accident had been there under Section 110A and HOB in view of amendment of the MV Act, 1939 in the year 1956. Therefore, in my considered opinion, at the time of inserting the 'no-fault liability' for the first time in 1982 by inserting a new provision in Section 92A, the Parliament was very much aware of the term 'award' used in Sections 110A and 110B which were inserted in 1956. 10. Having followed the corresponding provisions of Section 92A and Section 11 OB of the MV Act, 1939, the provisions of Section 140 and Section 168 respectively have been engrafted in the MV Act, 1988 and as such it could conveniently be construed that any amount granted being an interim compensation on 'no-fault liability' under Section 140 of the MV Act cannot be termed to be an 'award' for the purpose of Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 and as such, the petitioner rightly filed this revision petition. The plea of maintainability raised by the claimant-respondents is hereby turned down. In that view, I respectfully differ with the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court on that score. 11. The matter be listed for hearing.