NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. TULA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(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 section 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 section 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 section 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. 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 section 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 sections 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 section 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 section 163-A is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed for awarding compensation under fault liability. Under section 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 section 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 section 168. The object was to avoid delay in determination of compensation." (Emphasis added)