IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kumar - Respondent
CM(M) 533 of 2020 & CM Appl. 27392 of 2020
Decided On : 12-04-2021
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14th February, 2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi accepting the legal offer made by the insurance company and passing an interim award in terms of the said legal offer.
3. The challenge by the Petitioner/insurance company is to the effect that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, `the Act') by which interim compensation could be awarded, stands deleted from the Act by virtue of the amendment brought in by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, `the Amendment Act, 2019'). It is further submitted by Mr. Malik, ld. Counsel appearing for the insurance company that under Section 149(3) of the Act, an award in terms of the legal offer can be passed only if the said offer is accepted by the insured person. He relies upon Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., [MAC. APP. 940/2019, decided on 19th February, 2020] passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court.
4. A perusal of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 shows that as per Section 140 of the unamended Act, interim compensation could be granted in the following manner:
"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.-
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of [fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of [twenty-five thousand rupees].
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
[(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A.]
5. This provision has been deleted vide the Amendment Act, 2019. Insofar as Section 149(3) of the Act, contained in Chapter XI of the Act, is concerned, the same has been amended by Section 51 of the Amendment Act, 2019. The language in Section 149(3) as it now stands, is quite clear i.e., it is only if the Claimant, to whom the offer is made, "accepts such offers", the settlement can be recorded by the Claims Tribunal. Section 149(3) of the Act reads as under:
"149.
....
(3) If, the claimant to whom the offer is made under sub-section (2),-
(a) accepts such offer,-
(i) the Claims Tribunal shall make a record of such settlement, and such claim shall be deemed to be settled by consent; and
Interim compensation is not permissible under the unamended Motor Vehicles Act when not a fixed amount; offers from insurance companies require claimant acceptance to be valid.
Interim awards for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are only valid when made according to fixed amounts stipulated in the unamended Act; settlements must require claimant acceptance.
The judgment establishes the principle that an insurance company cannot disclaim liability to pay 'no-fault' compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the policy accepted liab....
The Court emphasized the entitlement to interim compensation under S.140 of the M.V. Act when prima facie evidence supports the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act....
Proceedings under section 140 of the MV Act are summary and provide immediate relief without questioning fault. Findings in such proceedings are not conclusive and do not preclude raising defenses in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least One lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) of the MV Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.