9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether compensation payable u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in addition or in the alternative to the determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability. Summary: Issue 1: Whether compensation payable u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is in addition or in the alternative to the determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability. The Supreme Court examined the scheme for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dividing it into sections: - Section 140: For no-fault liability in case of death or disablement. - Section 161: For hit and run motor accidents. - Section 163A: Special provisions for compensation on a structured formula basis without proving any wrongful act or neglect. - Section 168: Determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability. The Court noted that Section 163A was introduced to provide quicker relief to accident victims. The legislative history and objects behind Section 163A indicate that it was intended to provide a structured formula for compensation to avoid long drawn litigation. The Law Commission and Review Committee had recommended such a system to expedite the compensation process. The Court observed that Section 163A includes a non-obstante clause, indicating that it operates independently of other provisions. The structured formula under Section 163A is based on criteria such as annual income, age, and a multiplier, aiming to provide immediate relief without establishing fault. The Court also highlighted that there is no provision for adjustment or refund of compensation received under Section 163A against compensation determined on fault liability under Section 168. This contrasts with Sections 140 and 161, which provide for such adjustments. The language and structure of Section 163A suggest that it is an alternative to the determination of compensation on fault liability. The Court concluded that the compensation under Section 163A is not in addition to the compensation payable under Section 168 but is an alternative remedy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that compensation payable u/s 163A is an alternative to the determination of compensation on the principle of fault liability. The appeals filed by the Insurance Companies were allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders were quashed and set aside. The Court also urged the Central Government to revise and correct the Second Schedule under Section 163A(3) to address existing anomalies.
|
