United India Insurance Company Limited vs Lakkasani Shoba Rani and Others

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 01.05.2006 passed in OP No.318 of 2003 by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. On 04.12.2002 the deceased Lakkasani Venkataramana Reddy was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP-04-F-2091 towards Nagurivandalpalli village and at about 8.45 PM when he reached Boyapalli village on Rayachoti Galiveedu main road, a bullock cart was coming in opposite direction. The claimants case is that when the motor cycle came near the bullock cart, the bullock cart driver lost control over the same as a result of which the motor cycle colluded with the bullock cart and the deceased sustained grievous head injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayachoti where he succumbed to injuries. The first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the father and mother of the deceased. The claimants case is that the deceased was working as driver in APSRTC and earning Rs.6,000/- per month towards his salary and about Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture.

Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the motor cycle and the second respondent is the previous owner of the motor cycle. The third respondent is the Insurance Company with which the motor cycle was insured.

Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The third respondent-Insurance Company alone contested the matter. The third respondent denied the averments of the claimants with regard to the manner in which the accident has occurred. The case of the third respondent is that the motor cycle had no lights and therefore the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself.

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

Whether the deceased Lakkasani Venkataramana Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident on 04.12.2002 due to rash or negligent driving of R1''s Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. AP-04-F-2091 by its driver?

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

To what relief?

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant herself was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the third respondent-Insurance Company none were examined except marking Exs.B1 to B3. The service register of the deceased along with personal case records was marked as Ex.X1.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and on issue No. 2 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly held that respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In view of the same, the third respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and no third party is involved and that the deceased had no driving licence as required u/s 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') and when the deceased himself was negligent the claimants are not entitled for compensation. He relied on a decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Armoor Branch, Nizamabad Dist. Vs. Kore Laxmi and Others, , in support of his contention that the claim u/s 166 of the Act is not maintainable when it is proved that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. It is further contended that the claimants have to prove actionable negligence on the part of the third party. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in Appaji (since deceased) and Another Vs. M. Krishna and Another, , wherein it was held that a claimant cannot maintain a claim even u/s 163A of the Act when he himself is responsible for the accident.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied on a decision of this Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. G. Mohammed Rafiq, 2005(2) ALD (NOC 118) wherein this Court observed that compensation cannot be denied to a victim merely on the ground that the accident took place due to his own negligence. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased had no driving licence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In that case the Insurance Company was ultimately directed to satisfy the award and to recover the amount deposited by it along with the interest from the owner of the vehicle. It is also his submission that the claimants have filed an application u/s 163A of the Act.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation?

As far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned, the settled legal position is that the claimants have to prove the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident, that means it becomes obligatory on the part of the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved in the accident u/s 166 of the Act. However, the legislature have amended the Act by inserting 163-A of the Act, which is special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis which is as follows.

163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorized insurer shall be 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.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section(1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

Section 140 of the Act is as follows.

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 vehicles 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 subsection (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 u/s 163A.

Thus neither Section 140 nor Section 163A of the Act provide that in case where the accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased or injured himself the claimants are not entitled for compensation. The issue of negligence would be a non-issue in a claim u/s 163A of the Act. The claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. The word any other person in my humble view includes deceased or injured himself. There is nothing in those sections to support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that where the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased or injured himself no claim u/s 140 or 163A of the Act is maintainable. It appears that it is not the intention of the Legislature to exclude the legal heirs of the deceased or injured are when the deceased or injured are themselves responsible for the accident.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of the Act is to provide relief to the victims of the motor accidents. The legislature in their wisdom have provided two contingencies firstly u/s 166 of the Act i.e., where the claimants have to plead and prove that, the accident occurred due to wrongful act of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person and secondly u/s 163A of the Act, where the claimants need not plead and prove the negligence aspect. Thus, it is clear that the welfare legislation intended to remove the difficulties faced by the victims to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle i.e., irrespective of any pleading or evidence with regard to rash and negligent driving of any person including the deceased or injured the claimants are entitled for compensation u/s 163A of the Act. The legislature intent cannot be defeated by imparting any other view.

It is left open to the claimants to claim compensation u/s 166 or 163A of the Act. An application filed u/s 166 of the Act can be treated as an application u/s 163A of the Act. It has to be seen that a report sent by the police officer with regard to accident under sub-Section 6 of Section 158 of the Act can be treated as an application for compensation under sub-section 4 of Section 166 of the Act. On the same analogy such report can be treated as an application for compensation u/s 140 or 163A or 166 of the Act. Moreover when it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants there is no bar to treat an application filed u/s 166 of the Act as an application u/s 163A of the Act or u/s 140 of the Act. The ultimate object of the Tribunal should be to award just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunals are not expected to refuse or deny compensation on mere technical grounds or merely because the claimants have quoted a particular section and did not claim compensation under a particular provision under which they are entitled for compensation. Thus, it is made clear that whenever any application is filed u/s 166 of the Act, even if it is found that the claimants are not entitled for compensation u/s 166 of the Act there is no bar to award compensation u/s 140 or 163A of the Act. In this case irrespective of the fact whether claimants originally claimed compensation u/s 163A or 166 of the Act, they are entitled to just and reasonable compensation. By adopting such procedure, the Tribunals will render real justice and the object of the beneficial legislation can be achieved.

With due respect to Karnataka High Court decision 2nd cited above, I am not inclined to follow the said judgment. As far as the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited''s case (1 supra) is concerned, it only deals with Section 166 of the Act, therefore it also does not come in the way of holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Sections 140 or 163A of the Act. As far as the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cheemakurthi Venkata Kanaka Raju, , is concerned, it was held that it is for the Tribunal to decide as to the issue who has to ultimately pay the compensation.

In the case between Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lalitabai and others (Misc. First Appeal No.31626 of 2009 (MV), dated 30.08.2012), the Karnataka High Court observed as follows.

Having regard to the language of Section 163A of the Act, this is a non issue (negligence issue) for awarding compensation u/s 163A of the Act. The requirements are only as to whether an accident involving motor vehicle took place resulting in death or bodily injury of the nature mentioned in the schedule which entitles one for compensation irrespective of who contributed or who was negligent for causing the accident. While examining the scope of a statutory provision like this Courts should keep in mind the intention of the legislature to provide compensation to the dependants of such person who dies in an accident without making the question of negligence an issue and that is why Section 163A of the Act has been introduced in the statute book by way of amendment and as an exception to the normal claim petition that can be preferred u/s 166 of the Act.

In view of the above discussion the claim petition filed by the claimants is treated as an application u/s 163A of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no need to disturb the award passed by the Tribunal and the same stands confirmed.

Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.