Case: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors.

When the Legislature has taken care of using different phrases in different sections, normally different meaning is required to be assigned to the language used by the Legislature unless context otherwise requires. However, in relation to the same subject matter, if different words of different import are used in the same stature, there is presumption that they are not used in the same sense Re: Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul, AIR 1956 SC 35 at 38 . In this light, particularly Section 141 which provides for right to claim compensation ‘ under any other provision of this Act? or of ‘ any other law for the time being in force?, proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 140 would mean that it does not provide for deduction or adjustment of compensation payable under the Act, that is, on the principle of fault liability which is to be determined under Section 168. Specific Language of Section 163A Including its heading. 19. Lastly, for interpretation and construction of Section 163A, we would refer to its heading and language. The heading is ? Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis?. At the outset, we would make it clear that for interpretation of the words of Section the language of the heading cannot be used to control the operation of the Section, but at the same time being part of the statute it prima-facie furnishes some clue as to the meaning and purpose of Section Re: K.P. Varghese v. ITO, 1982 SCR 629 at 647. In case of ambiguity or doubt heading can be referred to as an aid in construing the provision. This heading indicates that the legislature has convisaged special provision for paying compensation on structural formula basis instead of paying the compensation by long drawn litigation after establishing fault liability. Section also begins witfi non-obstante clause ? notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any law for the time being in force.? This would mean that it is not subject to any adjudication of right to claim compensation as provided under the Act. The owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Section 163-B further clarifies that claim petition can be filed either under Section 140 or under Section 163 A but not under both sections. 20. The learned counsel for the claimants however submitted that if we compare the language used in Sections 163A and 140 (1), it would be apparent that Section 140 contemplates payment of compensation by the owner of the vehicle. As against this, Section 163A contemplates payment of compensation by the owner of the vehicle or authorised insurer. It is submitted that even if we read the said phrase as ? owner of the motor vehicle of authorised insurer? as ? owner of the motor vehicle or authorised insurer? on the assumption that ? of ? is wrongly used, then also it is their contention that Section 163A envisages payment either by the authorised insurer or by the owner of the motor vehicle. It has wider implication and, therefore, compensation beyond maximum of Rs. 50000 is provided in Second Schedule and hence the payment under Section 163A should not be considered as alternative to payment of compensation under the fault liability. In our view, it is true that Section 140 talks of payment of compensation by the owner of the vehicle, while Section 163A after reading ‘of as ‘or ‘ would mean that owner of the vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation under Section 163A. But that would not make any difference because determination of compensation under Section 163A is final and not as an interim measure. As stated above, the legislature has deliberately not provided that it is in addition to the compensation payable on the principle of fault liability. There is no provision for adjusting the compensation payable under Sec tion 163 A with the other payment on fault liability under the Act. 21. In the result, the contention of the claimants that right to get compensation under Section 163A is additional to claim compensation on no fault liability is rejected for the following reasons:- (l)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 section 140 and 161 in case of ‘hit and run motor accidents?, the Legislature has provided adjustment or refund of the said compensation in 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 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 163A is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed for awarding compensation on fault liability. Under section 163 A compensation is awarded without proof of any fault while for getting compensation on the basis of fault liability claimant is required to prove wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicle 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]21. In the result, the contention of the claimants that right to get compensation under Section 163A is additional to claim compensation on no fault liability is rejected for the following reasons:-(l)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 section 140 and 161 in case of ‘hit and run motor accidents?, the Legislature has provided adjustment or refund of the said compensation in 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 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 163A is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed for awarding compensation on fault liability. Under section 163 A compensation is awarded without proof of any fault while for getting compensation on the basis of fault liability claimant is required to prove wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicle 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.