2004 Supreme(SC) 337

2004(3) Supreme 602
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. -Appellants
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3126 of 2002
With
C.A. No. 3127 of 2002, R.P. (C) No. 160 of 2002 in C.A. No. 2573 of 2001, R.P. (C) No. 161 of 2002 in C.A. No. 2572 of 2001 and C.A. No. 1680/2004
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 708 of 2003)
Decided on 18-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Gaurab Banerjee, G.L. Sanghi, Jitender Sharma, Sr. Advocates, Arunabh Chaudhary, A.P. Medh, Hrishikesh Barua and Ms. Pragya Bhagel, Advocates for Ms. M. Karanjawala, Ms. Seema Sund, R.C. Mishra, Advocate for Dr. Meera Agarwal, K.L. Nandwani, Debasis Misra, Parmanand Jha, Ms. Minakshi Vij, Himinder Lal, Advocates.

Important point
Proceedings u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been held to be a final proceeding as a result whereof the claimants had been debarred from proceeding with their further claims made on the basis of fault ­liability in terms of Section 166 of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 140, 163-A and 166-Accident claim-Proceedings u/s 163-A-Final proceedings, not merely an interim relief-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 must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding u/s 163-A or u/s 166 of the Act, but not under both-Unlike Sections 140 and 141 of the Act, Parliament did not want to provide additional compensation in terms of Section 163-A of the Act.

       Held : Section 140 of the Act dealt with interim compensation but by inserting Section 163-A, the Parliament intended to provide for making of an award consisting of a pre-determined sum without insisting on a long-drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident. The Amendment was, thus, a deviation from the common law liability under the Law of Torts and was also in derogation of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act. The Act and the Rules framed by the State in no uncertain terms suggest that a new device was sought to be evolved so as to grant a quick and efficacious relief to the victims falling within the specified category. The heirs of the deceased or the victim in terms of the said provisions were assured of a speedy and effective remedy which was not available to the claimants under Section 166 of the Act. Chapter XI was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto, compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. (Paras 39 and 40)

       The submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants to the effect that Sections 140 and 163-A provide for similar scheme cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Payment of the amount in terms of Section 140 of the Act is ad hoc in nature. A claim made thereunder, as has been noticed hereinbefore, is in addition to any other claim which may be made under any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act does not contain any such provision. (Para 41)

       Section 163-A which has an overriding effect provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Sub-Section (1) of Section 163-A contains non-obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Sub-Section (2) of Section 163-A is in pari materia with Sub-Section (3) of Section 140 of the Act. (Para 44)

       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 of society. It may be true that Section 163-B provides for an option to a claimant to either go for a claim under Section 140 or Section 163-A of the Act, as the case may be, but the same was inserted ‘ex-abundanti cautela’ so as to remove any misconception in the mind of the parties to the lis having regard to the fact that both relate to the claim on the basis of no-fault liability. Having regard to the fact that Section 166 of the Act provides for a complete machinery for laying a claim on fault liability, the question of giving an option to the claimant to pursue their claims either under Section 163-A or Section 166 does not arise. If the submission of the learned counsel is accepted the same would lead to an incongruity. (Paras 49 and 50)

       We, therefore, 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. (Para 55)

       Section 163-A was introduced in the year 1994. The executive authority of the Central Government has the requisite jurisdiction to amend the Second 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. (Para 70)

       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 140, 163-A and 166-Accident-claim-Parents of appellants met with death in an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle-Appellants filed two claim petitions, one u/s 163-A and other u/s 166 of the Act-Claim of compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,97,800/- for the death of their mother as also a sum of Rs. 17,30,900/- for the death of their father-Motor Accident Tribunal, proceeding on basis that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act, merely an interim Relief was to be granted, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,20,500/- and Rs. 11,74,500/- respectively-It was held that applications filed u/s 166 of the Act would be determined separately -Appeal-High Court reduced the quantum of compensation holding that said sum would be paid by way of interim compensation-Appeal-Appellants have withdrawn 50 of the amount and rest of the amount has been invested-Whether High Court was justified in holding that award u/s 163-A is an interim relief-(No)-­Tribunal directed to determine claim ­petitions filed u/s 166 of the Act treating claim applications filed u/s 163-A of the Act as applications u/s 140 of the Act-Constitution of India-Art. 142.

       Held : 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 whose 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. 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 his 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. (Paras 65 & 66)

       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 whereafter, the Motor Vehicles 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. (Para 69)