Compensation under S.140 is distinct from S.163-A; claimants can invoke either provision, but not both.

1. We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the appellant as well as Mr. P.N. Raina, Advocate with Ms. Anshuya Sharma, Advocate for the respondents at length. These appeals by Letters Patent have been preferred by the insurance company against common judgment and order propounded by the learned single Judge in C.I.M.A. Nos. 66, 125 of 2001 and 106 - A of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment the learned single Judge had dismissed appeals against a common award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban dated 29.9.1998.

2. The sole controversy raised before the learned single Judge was as to whether court can grant additional compensation to the victims in terms of S.163 - A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') when compensation in terms of S.140 of the Act has already been granted. After going through the relevant provisions touching the matter in controversy and placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 428 SC, returned a finding which became the subject matter of challenge before us in these L.P.As., and is reproduced as under:

“Therefore, I find that the court is within its powers to grant a relief under S.163 - A, in addition to what it can grant under S.140 unless the case is covered by one of the exceptions. That being the answer to the question, I dismiss the appeals.”

The facts of the case shorn of details may be noticed. An accident involving death of three persons on the spot and severe injuries to one had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR 29 - D 2077 carrying karyana goods on way to Srinagar as a result of which the vehicle had fallen into river Chenab. Claim petition came to be filed by the LRs. of the deceased claiming compensation under S.166 and S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban. After framing of issues on the pleadings of the parties, evidence was adduced in support and rebuttal of respective contentions by the parties. It was during the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the claimants pleaded before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal that under S.165 of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate upon the claim for compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles under S.140 and S.163 - A. It was further contended that S.163 - A being the special provision as to the payment of compensation on the structured formula basis, compensation has to be paid to the LRs. of the deceased notwithstanding anything contained in or any other law for the time being in force. The Tribunal acceded to the submission made by the claimants, determined the compensation on structured formula basis under S.163 - A of the Act and awarded compensation in holding that the fixed amount of interim compensation granted under S.140 of the Act and received by the petitioners shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under S.163 - A of the Act.

3. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have been granted relief under S.140 of the Act for no fault liability and has no power to proceed under S.163 - A of the Act and allow further compensation on structured formula basis as per Second Schedule attached to the said provision. His further contention is that provision of S.140 and S.163 - A of Motor Vehicles Act deal with one and the same liability on no fault bas