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

3. For convenience we would refer to few facts in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8742 of 1999 in which the judgment and order dated 4.8.98 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No. 2473 of 1996 is challenged. Petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/was filed before the Claims Tribunal on the ground that one bus bearing registration No. G.J.3T 9815 met with an accident and Mayur, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, aged about 6 years died as a result thereof. The claimants also filed an application under Section 163A of the Act for interim compensation on structured formula basis. The Insurancecontended that as the bus was not insured with it, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal granted the prayer of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,62,000/to the respondents as interim compensation. The appellants preferred appeal before the High Court contending inter alia that in order to provide quicker relief to the accident victims, Section 163A was inserted and is not meant for interim compensation but is an alternative to the determination of compensation under Section 168. It was further contended that the application under Section 163A was a substantial application and not an interim application. The High Court by judgment and order dated 4.8.1998 held that the award under Section 163A was an interim award and the claimants were entitled to proceed further with determination of compensation under Section 168 of the Act. That order is under challenge.

Reasoning: 22. 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 reasonsThere 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 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 163A.(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 provisions of this Act."(4) In view of theclause `notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the provisions of Section 163A 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 163A 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 vehicles concerned.(6) Award of compensation under Section 163A 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.In addition, the learned counsel also pointed out that in case of fatal accident and disability inaccident, it has been provided that notional income for the claimant who had no income prior to accidental shall be Rs. 15000/per annum and still however the Second Schedule provides table of income ranging from Rs. 3000/to Rs. 40000/up also does not provide any calculation for Rs.as the columns in the Schedule inter alia provide for compensation for a person having income of Rs.and thereafter straightaway at Rs.The learned counsel also submitted that despite the specific provision in Section 163A(3) that the Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living, by notification in Official Gazette from time to time amend the Schedule, nothing has been done so far. Further, by order dated 30.8.2000, this Court again noticed number of anomalies in the Second Schedule and, therefore, thought it fit to have assistance of either the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor General of India. When the matter was called out on 15.12.2000, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, ASG, stated before the Court that the order passed by this Court on 30.8.2000 has already engaged serious attention of the Ministry of Surface Transport Department and the Government was considering the matter for bringing necessary correction in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, we again sought assistance of the Additional Solicitor General on the interpretation of Section 163A and also to verify whether there are corrections in the Second Schedule. Learned Additional Solicitor General stated that amendment might take some time.