RATAN KUMAR Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY reason of a motor vehicle accident, a death occurred. In order to obtain compensation under Section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal felt that a claim under Section 140 of the Act is an interim claim, subject to the final adjudication of the claim made under Section 166 of the Act and as the appellant made no independent claim under Section 166 of the Act, the interim claim, as put forward under Section 140 of the Act, is not maintainable. On that analogy, the claim of the appellants was rejected. The appeal preferred by the appellants having been rejected on identical grounds, the present appeal has been preferred. 2a. A look at the order under appeal would indicate that the learned Judge, who dealt with the appeal, did not take note of the provisions of Sections 140 and 166 of the Act and instead was persuaded by a short judgment rendered by a learned single judge in connection with two matters which have been reported. Learned Judge, at the same time, did not also notice the observations of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala high Court as referred to in the judgment under appeal. We would, therefore, consider the provisions of Sections 140 and 166 of the Act, which are as follows :

(3.) A look at Section 140 of the Act would make it amply clear that the compensation payable thereunder is a fixed sum of money and at least that much is required to be paid in the event of death or permanent disablement. Sub-section (5) of Section 140 of the act makes it abundantly clear that payment of compensation as mentioned in Section 140 of the Act would not absolve the party liable to compensate and accordingly the party liable to compensate may have to pay more than what has been provided for in section 140 of the Act and in such case the amount of compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act should be deducted from the amount of ultimate compensation payable for a motor vehicle accident resulting in death or permanent disablement. Although, Section 140 of the Act fixes the liability for payment of compensation, but in so many words, it does not indicate the forum to be approached for the purpose of recovery thereof. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 166 makes it abundantly clear that for the purpose of obtaining compensation under Section 140 of the Act, one may approach the Claims Tribunal before whom an application for compensation has to be made. A combined reading of Sections 140 and 166 of the Act would not suggest that the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act is by way of interim measure. The same would only become by way of interim measure, when a larger claim is awarded or at least to the extent as mentioned in Section 140 of the Act, the liability whereunder is fixed. A claimant may be satisfied only with the amount of compensation as mentioned in Section 140 of the Act and accordingly can seek compensation on the basis thereof. It is not obligatory on the part of the claimant to claim compensation for an amount larger than what has been mentioned in Section 140 of the Act. It may be possible that the claimant may feel that it would be a waste of time to ask for more than what has been mentioned in Section 140 of the Act, and therefore, can confine his claim only to that extent as is permissible under Section 140 of the Act.