ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GHULAM MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the appellant as well as Mr. P.N. Raina, Advocate with Ms. Anshuya Sharma, Advocate for the respondents at length. These appeals by Letters Patent have been preferred by the insurance company against common judgment and order propounded by the learned single Judge in C.I.M.A. Nos. 66, 125 of 2001 and 106-A of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment the learned single Judge had dismissed appeals against a common award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban dated 29.9.1998.

(2.) The sole controversy raised before the learned single Judge was as to whether court can grant additional compensation to the victims in terms of section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') when compensation in terms of section 140 of the Act has already been granted. After going through the relevant provisions touching the matter in controversy and placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 428 (SC), returned a finding which became the subject matter of challenge before us in these L.P.As., and is reproduced as under:

(3.) Mr. Baldev Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have been granted relief under section 140 of the Act for no fault liability and has no power to proceed under section 163-A of the Act and allow further compensation on structured formula basis as per Second Schedule attached to the said provision. His further contention is that provision of sections 140 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act deal with one and the same liability on no fault basis and because of the specific bar created by section 163-B, it is legally inconceivable that the Tribunal can grant relief under both the provisions.