Case: Deepal Girishbhai Soni  Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Borada

that the amount of compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force is to be reduced from the amount of the compensation payable under Sub-Section (2) thereof or under Section 163-A of the Act. Right to claim compensation under Section 140, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 141 is in addition to any other right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability. Such a provision does not exist in Section 163-A. If no amount is payable under the fault liability of the compensation which may be received from any other law, no refund of the amount received by the claimant under Section 140 is postulated in the Scheme. Section 163-A, on the other hand, nowhere provides that the payment of compensation of no-fault liability in terms of the structured formula is in addition to the liability to pay compensation in accordance with the right to get compensation on the principle of fault liability. It is also not correct to contend that the expression "any other law for the time being in force" used in Section 140(5) would include any other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Had the intention of the Parliament been to include the other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act within the meaning of the expression "any other law for the time being in force", it could have said so expressly. The very fact that the Parliament has chosen to use the expression "any other law", the same, in our considered opinion, would mean a law other than the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The proviso appended to Sub-Section 95) of Section 140 of the Act is required to be given a purposive meeting. 63. It is not in dispute that the claim of compensation irrespective of the death or bodily injury may arise under other statutes as, for example, workmens Compensation Act, Factories Act, Fatal Accidents Act and other acts governing various industries including hazardous industries. 64. In the event, the motor vehicle in question is insured, ultimately the liability would also be fastened under the insurer having regard to the provision laid down in Chapter XII of the Act. We may also notice that Rule 211(1) of Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules provides for the application for compensation in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 166 of the Act. A claim application is to be filed in Form Comp. A. Rule 231 thereof provides for an application for compensation in respect of liability without fault and for the said purpose the claim application prescribed therefore is to be filed in Form No. CWF. The very fact that different forms had been prescribed as regard determination of the final compensation is also suggestive of the fact that both proceedings are meant to be final in nature. Column No. 10 in Form Comp. A requires the claimant to give brief particulars of the accident which would include the nature and extent of fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle, but no such column is provided for in Form CWF, Subject to the said distinction, all other particulars required to be furnished are almost identical. 65. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", of "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that the Parliament intended to insert a non-obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of. Conclusion: 66. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those who annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.67. However, in this case, we may notice that the parties have proceeded to file two applications - one, under Section 163-A and another under Section 166 of the Act. Both have been entertained. Both the Tribunal as also the High Court have proceeded on the basis that the amount of compensation under Section 163-A is by way of an interim award and the same would not preclude the claimants to proceed with this claim made in terms of Section 166 of the Act. It is submitted at the Bar that the appellants have withdrawn 50% of the amount and rest of the amount has been invested. The appellants have lost both of their parents in the accident. Only one of the appellants at the relevant time was a major. It appears that 70% of the amount permitted to be withdrawn has been deposited in the Fixed Deposit. We agree with the submission of Mr. Banerjee that the claim of the appellants made under Section 163-A be treated to be one under Section 140 of the Act and upon adjusting the amounts provided for thereunder, the appellants may refund the rest thereof to the insurer.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]By reason of the Section 163-A, therefore, the compensation is required to be determined on the basis of a structured formula whereas in terms of Section 140 only a fixed amount is to be given. A provision of law providing for compensation is presumed to be final in nature unless a contra indication therefor is found to be in the statute either expressly or by necessary implication. While granting compensation, the Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon the disputed question as regard age and income of the deceased or the victim, as the case may be. Unlike Section 140 of the Act, adjudication on several issues arising between the parties is necessary in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act.48. Decisions rendered by this Court are galore where computation as regard the amount of compensation has been related to multiplier method involving ascertainment of loss of dependency and capitalizing the same by appropriate multiplier.The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. the amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections ofscheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. the amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections oftherefore, are of the opinion that remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder simultaneously. One, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both.We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those who annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.67. However, in this case, we may notice that the parties have proceeded to file two applications - one, under Section 163-A and another under Section 166 of the Act. Both have been entertained. Both the Tribunal as also the High Court have proceeded on the basis that the amount of compensation under Section 163-A is by way of an interim award and the same would not preclude the claimants to proceed with this claim made in terms of Section 166 of the Act. It is submitted at the Bar that the appellants have withdrawn 50% of the amount and rest of the amount has been invested. The appellants have lost both of their parents in the accident. Only one of the appellants at the relevant time was a major. It appears that 70% of the amount permitted to be withdrawn has been deposited in the Fixed Deposit. We agree with the submission of Mr. Banerjee that the claim of the appellants made under Section 163-A be treated to be one under Section 140 of the Act and upon adjusting the amounts provided for thereunder, the appellants may refund the rest thereof to the insurer.So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 3126/2002 and 3127/2002 are concerned, we in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution direct that the claim applications of the appellants under Section 163-A of the Act be treated to be applications under Section 140 thereof. The amount invested by the Tribunal may be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent - Insurance Company. The appellants shall refund the excess amount withdrawn by them after adjusting the amount payable in terms of Section 140 of the Act and the interest which would have accrued thereon shall be adjusted towards the compensation received by the claimant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order where after, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal shall proceed to determine their claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act in accordance with law. This order shall not be treated as a precedent.71. Section 163-A was introduced in the year 1994. The executive authority of the Central Government has the requisite jurisdiction to amend the Section Schedule from time to time. Having regard to the inflation and fall in the rate of bank interest; it is desirable that the Central Government bestows serious consideration to this aspect of the matter.