http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2568  of  2001 Appeal (civil)  2569     of  2001 Appeal (civil)  2570     of  2001 Appeal (civil)  2571     of  2001 Appeal (civil)  2572     of  2001 Appeal (civil)  2573     of  2001

PETITIONER: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HANSRAJBHAI V. KODALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & D.P. Mohapatra

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J Shah, J.

       Leave granted.

   The common question involved in these appeals is whether the  compensation  payable under Section 163A of  the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as per  the  structured formula basis is in addition or in  the alternative  to the determination of the compensation on the principle  of fault liability, after following the procedure prescribed under the Act?

   For  convenience  we would refer to few facts  in  Civil Appeal  arising  out of S.L.P.  (Civil) No.8742 of  1999  in which the judgment and order dated 4.8.98 passed by the High Court  of  Gujarat  at Ahmedabad in FA No.2473  of  1996  is challenged.    Petition   claiming   compensation   of   Rs. 2,50,000/-  was  filed  before the Claims  Tribunal  on  the ground  that  one bus bearing registration No.  G.J.3T  9815 met  with  an accident and Mayur, son of respondent Nos.   1 and  2,  aged about 6 years died as a result  thereof.   The claimants  also  filed an application under Section 163A  of the  Act  for  interim compensation  on  structured  formula basis.   The Insurance Company- appellant contended that  as the  bus  was not insured with it, it was not liable to  pay compensation.  The Claims Tribunal granted the prayer of the respondents  and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,62,000/- to  the respondents as interim compensation.  The appellants preferred appeal before the High Court contending inter alia that  in  order  to provide quicker relief to  the  accident victims,  Section  163A  was inserted and is not  meant  for interim   compensation   but  is  an  alternative   to   the determination  of  compensation under Section 168.   It  was further  contended  that the application under Section  163A was   a   substantial  application   and  not   an   interim application.   The  High Court by judgment and  order  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

4.8.1998  held  that  the award under section  163A  was  an interim  award  and the claimants were entitled  to  proceed further with determination of compensation under Section 168 of the Act.  That order is under challenge.

   For  determining  the question involved, the scheme  for payment  of  compensation  under the Act can be  divided  as under:  -

   (i)  Section 140For no-fault liability in case of death or disablement;

   (ii) Section 161In case of hit and run motor accidents, where  the  identity of the vehicle cannot  be  ascertained compensation  amount  is  Rs.25000/- in case  of  death  and Rs.12500/- in case of grievous hurt;

   (iii)  Section 163ASpecial provisions as to payment  of compensation   on   structured     formula   basis   without establishing  or  proving  any wrongful act  or  neglect  or default of any person;

   (iv)  Section 168Determination of compensation  payable in  pursuance  of  any  right  on  the  principle  of  fault liability.

   Chapter   XII  provides  for   constitution  of   Claims Tribunals  by  the  State  Government  for  the  purpose  of adjudicating  the claims for compensation and the  procedure thereof.   The Claims Tribunal is required to determine  the application for payment of compensation either under section 140  or section 163A on the basis of no-fault liability  and also  on  the basis of right to receive the compensation  on the  principle  of  fault liability on the basis of  Law  of Torts,  as  modified by the Fatal Accidents Act,  1855  read with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

   For  appreciating  the  rival contentions, it  would  be necessary  to  refer  to  the  relevant  provisions  of  the Sections  140 (Chapter X), 161, 162, 163A, 163B (Chapter XI) and 167 (Chapter XII) of the Act which are as under:

   140.  Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.

   (1) Whether 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

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 the 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.

   141.   (1)  Provisions  as  to   other  right  to  claim compensation  for  death or permanent disablement. (1)  The right  to claim compensation under section 140 in respect of death  or  permanent disablement of any person shall  be  in addition to any other right, except the right to claim under the  scheme  referred to in section 163A (such  other  right hereafter  in  this section referred to as the right on  the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under  any  other provision of this Act or of any other  law for the time being in force.

   (2)  A  claim  for  compensation under  section  140  in respect  of  death  or permanent disablement of  any  person shall  be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation  is  claimed  in  respect   of  such  death  or permanent   disablement  under  section   140  and  also  in pursuance  of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for  compensation under section 140 shall be disposed of  as aforesaid in the first place.

   (3)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in  sub-section (1),  where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of  any person, the person liable to pay compensation  under section 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with  the  right  on the principle of fault, the  person  so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and

   (a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less  than the amount of the second-mentioned  compensation, he   shall   be  liable  to   pay  (in  addition)   to   the first-mentioned   compensation)   only  so   much   of   the second-mentioned  compensation as is equal to the amount  by which it exceeds the first mentioned compensation;

   (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal  to  or more than the amount of the second-  mentioned compensation,   he   shall  not  be   liable  to   pay   the second-mentioned compensation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

   161.   Special provisions as to compensation in case  of hit  and  run motor accident. (1) For the purposes of  this section, section 162 and section 163

   (a)  grievous  hurt shall have the same meaning as  in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);

   (b)  hit  and  run motor accident  means  an  accident arising  out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the  identity  whereof  cannot be ascertained  in  spite  of reasonable efforts for the purpose;

   (c) scheme means the scheme framed under section 163.

   (2)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in the  General Insurance  Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972) or  any  other  law  for  the time being  in  force  or  any instrument  having  the force of law, the General  Insurance Corporation  of India formed under section 9 of the said Act and  the insurance companies for the time being carrying  on general insurance business in India shall provide for paying in  accordance  with  the  provisions of this  Act  and  the scheme, compensation in respect of the death of, or grievous hurt to, persons resulting from hit and run motor accidents.

(3)     Subject to the provisions of this Act and the scheme, there shall be paid as compensation

   (a) in respect of the death of any person resulting from a  hit  and run motor accident, a fixed sum  of  twenty-five thousand rupees;

   (b)  in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from  a  hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum  of  twelve thousand five hundred rupees.

   (4)  The  provisions of sub-section (1) of  section  166 shall  apply  for  the purpose of  making  applications  for compensation  under  this  section  as they  apply  for  the purpose  of making applications for compensation referred to in that sub- section.

   162.  Refund in certain cases of compensation paid under section  161. (1) The payment of compensation in respect of the  death of, or grievous hurt to, any person under section 161   shall  be  subject  to   the  condition  that  if  any compensation  (hereafter in this sub-section referred to  as the other compensation) or other amount in lieu of or by way of  satisfaction  of a claim for compensation is awarded  or paid  in  respect of such death or grievous hurt  under  any other  provision of this Act or any other law or otherwise so  much of the other compensation or other amount aforesaid as is equal to the compensation paid under section 161 shall be refunded to the insurer.

   (2)  Before  awarding  compensation  in  respect  of  an accident  involving  the death of, or bodily injury to,  any person  arising  out of the use of a motor vehicle or  motor vehicles under any provision of this Act (other than section 161)  or  any  other  law,  the  Tribunal,  Court  or  other authority  awarding  such  compensation shall verify  as  to whether   in  respect  of  such   death  or  bodily   injury compensation  has already been paid under section 161 or  an application  for  payment of compensation is  pending  under that  section,  and such Tribunal, Court or other  authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

shall,

   (a)  if compensation has already been paid under section 161,  direct  the  person  liable to  pay  the  compensation awarded  by it to refund to the insurer, so much thereof  as is required to be refunded in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (1);

   (b)  if  an application for payment of  compensation  is pending  under section 161 forward the particulars as to the compensation awarded by it to the insurer.

   Explanation.For  the  purpose of this  sub-section,  an application  for  compensation  under section 161  shall  be deemed to be pending

   (i) if such application has been rejected, till the date of the rejection of the application, and

   (ii)  in  any  other case, till the date of  payment  of compensation in pursuance of the application.

   163A.   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 authorised 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 Workmens Compensation Act, 1923  (8  of 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.

   (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.

   163B.   Option  to file claim in certain cases.Where  a person  is entitled to claim compensation under section  140 and  section  163A, he shall file the claim under either  of the said sections and not under both.

   167.   Option  regarding  claims   for  compensation  in certain  cases.Notwithstanding  anything contained  in  the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of,  or  bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a  claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation  Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may  without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X  claim such  compensation under either of those Acts but not  under both.

   Further,  Section 164 empowers the Central Government to make  rules  for  the purpose of carrying  into  effect  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

provisions of Chapter XI which include making such rules for (a) the forms to be used for the purpose of the said chapter and  (f) the identification by certificates or otherwise  of persons  or  vehicles  exempted from the provisions  of  the Chapter.   Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of   the respondents,  however, submitted that uptil now, the Central Government  has not framed any such rules as provided  under Section  164.   Thereafter,  Chapter XII deals  with  Claims Tribunals.  Section 165 provides for establishment of Claims Tribunals  for  the purpose of adjudicating upon claims  for compensation  in respect of accidents involving a death  of, or  bodily injury to, persons arising out of or use of motor vehicles,  or  damages to any property of a third  party  so arising,  or  both,  and   Explanation  to  sub-section  (1) provides  that  claims  for   compensation  in  respect  of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle includes claims for compensation  under  Section  140   and  163A.   Hence,  the application  claiming compensation under Section 140 or 163A and/or  on the right to claim compensation on the  principle of fault liability is required to be filed before the Claims Tribunal.  Section 166 provides who can make application for such   compensation   and   where   it   could   be   filed. Additionally, sub-section (4) of section 166 makes provision that the Claims Tribunal shall treat the report of accidents forwarded  to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as  an application  for compensation under the Act and  sub-section (6) of section 158 provides for submitting the report to the Claims  Tribunal  by  the officer in charge  of  the  police station  as  soon as any information regarding any  accident involving  death or bodily injury to any person is  recorded or  report  under  Section  158 is  completed  by  a  police officer.   Section  168  requires  the  Claims  Tribunal  to determine  the amount of compensation which appears to it to be  just and specify person or persons to whom  compensation is  to  be paid by making an award.  Such award  shall  also specify  the  amount which shall be paid by the  insurer  or owner  or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident  or by  all  or  any of them, as the case may  be.   Proviso  to sub-section  (1)  of Section 168 makes it clear that  in  an application  which is filed under Section 165, if there is a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or  permanent  disablement of any person, the same is to  be disposed  of in first place in accordance with provisions of Chapter X (i.e.  Sections 140 to 143).

Legislative HistoryStatement of Objects and Reasons:

   From  the  provisions quoted above, it appears  that  no specific  mention is made that remedy provided under Section 163A   is  in  addition  or  in  the  alternative   to   the determination   of  compensation  on   the  basis  of  fault liability.   Section 163A was not there in the original  Act of  1988.   It  was inserted by Act No.  54 of  1994  w.e.f. 14.11.1994.   Hence, for arriving at the proper  conclusion, it  would  be  necessary to cull out legislative  intent  by referring  to the legislative history as well as Objects and Reasons for inserting the said provision.

   The  Law Commission of India in its 119th Report in  the Introductory  Chapter  observed [para 1.6]  that  previously there  was  recommendation  for inserting provision  in  the Motor  Vehicles Act to extend protection to victims of  hit and  run  accidents  where the person liable  to  pay  such compensation  or his whereabouts cannot be ascertained after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

reasonable  effort  by providing that in such an event,  the person  entitled  to such compensation shall be entitled  to receive  it  from  the State.  In para 1.7  for  introducing provision for no fault liability, the Commission observed as under:

   By  1980,  a wind was blowing that compensation to  the victims  of  motor  accidents  should be by  way  of  social security  and  the  liability  to   pay  the  same  must  be No-fault  liability.   The law, as it stands  at  present, save  the  provision in Chapter VIIA, inserted by the  Motor Vehicles  (Amendment)  Act, 1982, enables the victim or  the dependants  of  the victim in the event of death to  recover compensation  on proof of fault of the person liable to  pay compensation  and which fault caused the harm such as bodily injury  or  death.  In the event of death of a victim  of  a motor  accident  and  the  consequent  harm  caused  to  his dependants,  the question whether the person responsible for the  action causing harm had committed a fault or it was  an inevitable  accident,  is hardly relevant from the point  of view of victim or his/her dependants.  The expanding notions of  social  security and social justice envisaged  that  the liability   to  pay  compensation   must  be  a   No-fault liability.

   Before  the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was repealed by  the present Act, the Legislature introduced Chapter VII-A in the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939.  While  interpreting  the  said provisions,  this  Court  in Gujarat  State  Road  Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.  Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another [(1987) 3 SCR 404] referred to the aforesaid recommendations made by the Law Commission and observed thus:  -

   When  the  Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was enacted  there were no motor vehicles on the roads in India.  Today, thanks to  the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are put  on  the  road and the largest number  of  injuries  and deaths are taking place on the roads on account of the motor vehicles  accidents.   In  view of the fast  and  constantly increasing  volume  of traffic, the motor vehicles upon  the roads  may  be regarded to some extent as coming within  the principle  of  liability  defined in Rylands  v.   Fletcher, [1868]  L.R.  3 H.L.330, 340.  From the point of view of the pedestrian  the roads of this country have been rendered  by the  use  of the motor vehicles highly dangerous.  Hit  and run  cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or  killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he  or his  legal  representatives  as the case may  be  should  be entitled  to  recover  damages if the  principle  of  social justice should have any meaning at all.  In order to meet to some  extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths and  injuries  caused  in road accidents there  has  been  a continuous  agitation  through  out the world  to  make  the liability   for  damages  arising   out  of  motor  vehicles accidents  as  a liability without fault.  In order to  meet the  above social demand on the recommendation of the Indian Law  Commission  Chapter  VIIA was introduced  in  the  Act. Sections  92-A to 92-E of the Act are to be found in Chapter VIIA.

   The  Court  further observed as under:  - This part  of the  Act  is clearly a departure from the usual  common  law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

part  of  the  owner or driver of the motor  vehicle  before claiming  any  compensation  for   the  death  or  permanent disablement  caused on account of a motor vehicle  accident. To  that  extent the substantive law of the  country  stands modified.  The special provisions contained in section 109-A to  section  109-C  of the Act providing for  a  scheme  for granting  relief to victims or the legal representatives  of victims  of  hit and run motor vehicle accident  cases  is another novel effort on the part of the Government to remedy the  situation created by the modern society which has  been responsible  for introducing so many fast moving vehicles on roads.

   Thereafter a Committee to Review the Provisions of Motor Vehicles  Act,  1988 and Central Motor Vehicle  Rules,  1989 (hereinafter  referred to as the Review Committee) was  set up  by  the Government of India in March 1990.   The  Review Committee  in  its report suggested changes in a  number  of provisions in the Act.  The Review Committee considered that determination  of the claims cases pending before the Claims Tribunal  takes  a  long  time.    To  obviate  such  delay, proposals were made that finalisation of compensation claims would  greatly facilitate to the advantage of claimants, the vehicle  owners  as  well as the insurance companies,  if  a system  of structured compensation can be introduced.  Under such  scheme the affected party can have the option of their accepting  the lump sum compensation as is notified in  that scheme  of structured compensation or of pursuing his  claim through  the  normal  channels.    Thereafter,  the   Review Committee  considered  the suggestion of  General  Insurance Corporation  that  claimants should first file their  claims with  Motor  Accident Claims Tribunals and the  insurers  be allowed  six  months  time  to confirm  their  prima  facie liability  subject  to  defences available  under  the  Act. After such confirmation, the claimants should be required to exercise  their  option  for conciliation  under  Structured Compensation Formula within stipulated time.

   Finally,  the  Committee also observed:   Para  4.11.2: .In  case  a  claimant  opts  for  conciliation,  necessary consent  award  may be given by MACT and if he does not  opt for  it, he may proceed with regular Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunal   in   the  usual   course.   The  Committee   also recommended  that  the  decision of the  insurer  to  accept liability  before the expiry of the stipulated period should be  the final one and after it is available it will be  open to  the  insured to claim compensation under the  structured compensation.

   Further,  the  statement  of  objects  and  reasons  for amending   the   Act   inter    alia   mentions   that   the recommendations  of  the Review Committee were forwarded  to the State Governments for comments and they generally agreed with  these  recommendations.   The draft of  the  proposals based  on  the  recommendation of the Review  Committee  and representations  from  the  public were  placed  before  the Transport Development Council for seeking their views in the matter.   The  Transport  Development Council  made  certain suggestions  and  the relevant suggestion is,(b)  providing adequate  compensation to victims of road accidents  without going  into long drawn procedure.  The proposed  legislation inter  alia  provide  for (h) increase in  the  amount  of compensation to the victims of hit and run cases;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

   (k)   a  new  pre-determined   formula  for  payment  of compensation  to  road  accident  victims on  the  basis  of age/income, which is more liberal and rational.

   The next question iswhether the recommendations made by the  Review Committee are reflected in the provisions, which are  inserted  by  the said Act.  It is contended  that  the relevant   provisions   nowhere  provide   that   lump   sum compensation  payable under the structured formula basis  is alternative   and   optional  to    the   determination   of compensation  under  Section  168.   As  stated  above,  the Legislature has not specified or clarified that compensation payable  under  Section  163-A is in the alternative  or  in addition.   Therefore,  we are referring to the reasons  for inserting  Section 163A in context of other provisions.  For the  purpose of interpretation in such cases, this Court  in Utkal  Contractors and Joinery P.  Ltd.  & Ors.  Vs.   State of  Orissa  & Ors.  [(1987) 3 SCC 279] observed that  reason for  a  statute is a safest guide to its interpretation  and held thus (P.288-89):  -

   .The  reason for a statute is the safest guide to its interpretation.   The  words of a statute take their  colour from the reason for it.  How do we discover the reason for a statute?   There  are  external   and  internal  aids.   The external  aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill  is presented to Parliament, the reports of  committees which  preceded  the Bill and the reports  of  Parliamentary Committees.   Occasional  excursions  into  the  debates  of Parliament  are permitted.  Internal aids are the  preamble, the scheme and the provisions of the Act.  Having discovered the reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the wind,  the  interpreter may proceed ahead.  No provision  in the  statute and no word of the statute may be construed  in isolation.  Every provision and every word must be looked at generally  before  any provision or word is attempted to  be construed.   The  setting  and the  pattern  are  important Again,  while  the words of an enactment are important,  the context is no less important.

   In  this  context if we refer to the Review  Committees Report,  the  reason  for enacting Section 163A is  to  give earliest  relief  to  the  victims   of  the  motor  vehicle accidents.   The  Committee observed that  determination  of cases  takes  long  time and, therefore, under a  system  of structural  compensation,  the compensation that is  payable for different classes of cases depending upon the age of the deceased,  the  monthly  income at the time  of  death,  the earning  potential  in the case of minor, loss of income  on account  of  loss  of  limb etc.  can be  notified  and  the affected  party can then have option of their accepting lump sum compensation under the scheme of structural compensation or  of pursuing his claim through the normal channels.   The Report  of the Review Committee was considered by the  State Governments  and  comments were notified.   Thereafter,  the Transport Development Council made suggestions for providing adequate  compensation to victims of road accidents  without going  into  long drawn procedure.  As per the  objects  and reasons,  it is a new pre-determined formula for payment  of compensation  to  road  accidents victims on  the  basis  of age/income which is more liberal and rational.  On the basis of  the said recommendation after considering the Report  of the  Transport Development Council, the Bill was  introduced

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

with   a   new  pre-determined   formula  for  payment   of compensation  to  road  accident  victims on  the  basis  of age/income  which  is  more   liberal  and  notional,  i.e. Section 163A.  It is also apparent that compensation payable under  Section 163A is almost based on relevant criteria for determining  the compensation such as annual income, age  of the victim and multiplier to be applied.  In addition to the figure  which  is arrived at on the basis of said  criteria, schedule also provides that amount of compensation shall not be  less than Rs.50,000/-.  It provides for fixed amount  of general  damage  in case of death such as (1) Rs.2000/-  for funeral  expenses  (2) Rs.5000/- for loss of  consortium  if beneficiary  is the spouse (3) Rs.2400/- for loss of  estate (4) for medical expenses supported by the bills, voucher not exceeding  Rs.15000/-.   Similarly, for disability  in  non- fatal  accident  para  5  of   the  Schedule  provides   for determination  of  compensation  on the basis  of  permanent disability.   Para 6 provides for notional income for  those who had no income prior to accident at Rs.15000/- per annum. There  is  also provision for reduction of 1/3rd  amount  of compensation  on  the assumption that the victim would  have incurred  the said amount towards maintaining himself had he been  alive.   The  purpose of this Section and  the  Second Schedule  is  to  avoid long drawn litigation and  delay  in payment  of compensation to the victims or his heirs who are in  dire need of relief.  If such affected claimant opts for accepting  the  lump-sum  compensation based  on  structured formula, he would get relief at the earliest.  It also gives vital advantage of not pleading or establishing any wrongful act  or  neglect  or default of the owner of  the  offending vehicle  or  vehicles.  This no fault liability  appears  to have  been introduced on the basis of the suggestion of  the Law  Commission to the effect that the expanding notions of social  security and social justice envisage that  liability to  pay  compensation  must be no fault liability  and  as observed  by  this  Court in Ramanbhais case  (Supra),  in order  to  meet  to some extent the  responsibility  of  the society   to  the  deaths  and   injuries  caused  in   road accidents.  However, this benefit can be availed of by  the claimant  only  by  restricting his claim on  the  basis  of income at a slab of Rs.40,000/- which is the highest slab in the  Second  Schedule which indicates that  the  legislature wanted  to  give benefit of no fault liability to a  certain limit.   This  would clearly indicate that the scheme is  in alternative  to  the determination of compensation on  fault basis  under  the  Act.   The object  underlining  the  said amendment  is  to pay compensation without there  being  any long  drawn litigation on an predetermined formula, which is known  as structured formula basis which itself is based  on relevant  criteria  for  determining  compensation  and  the procedure of paying compensation after determining the fault is  done away.  Compensation amount is paid without pleading or  proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as  a social  security  measure because of ever  increasing  motor vehicles  accidents in a fast moving society.  Further,  the law  before  insertion of Section 163-A was  giving  limited benefit  to  the  extent provided under Section 140  for  no fault  liability and determination of compensation amount on fault  liability  was  taking long time.  That  mischief  is sought  to  be remedied by introducing Section 163A and  the disease  of delay is sought to be cured to a large extent by affording  benefit  to  the victims  on  structured  formula basis.  Further, if the question of determining compensation on  fault  liability  is  kept  alive  it  would  result  in additional  litigation  and complications in case  claimants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

fail  to establish liability of the owner of the  defaulting vehicles.

Use of specific words also and in addition in Sections 140 and 141:

   The  aforesaid conclusion gets support from the language used  in  Sections 140, 141, 161 and 163A.  Sections 140  to 143  provide  for liability of the owner of the  vehicle  in case  of  death  or  permanent  disablement  of  any  person resulting  from  an accident arising out of use of  a  motor vehicle  or  motor vehicles to pay compensation without  any pleading or establishing that death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or  owners  of the vehicle or vehicles.  By way of  earliest relief, victim is entitled to get the amount of compensation of  Rs.50,000/- in case of death and Rs.25,000/- in case  of permanent  disablement.   It is further provided  that  such claim  shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful  act, neglect  or default of the person in respect of whose  death or  permanent disablement has occurred.  Sub-section (5)  of Section  140  upon which much reliance is placed by  learned counsel for the Insurance Companies as well as the claimants requires  consideration and interpretation, which inter alia provides  that  owner of the vehicle is also liable  to  pay compensation  under  any  other law for the  time  being  in force.   The  word  also indicates that the owner  of  the vehicle  would  be additionally liable to  pay  compensation under  any  other  law  for the time being  in  force.   The proviso to sub-section (5) further clarifies that the amount of  compensation  payable under any other law for  the  time being  in  force  is  to  be  reduced  from  the  amount  of compensation  payable under sub-section (2) or under section 163A.   This  is  further crystalized in Section  141  which provides  that right to claim compensation under Section 140 is  in addition to any other right to claim compensation  on the  principle of fault liability and specifically  excludes the right to claim compensation under the scheme referred to in  Section  163A.  Section 163B also provides that where  a person  is entitled to claim compensation under Section  140 and  Section 163A, he can file the claim under either of the said  sections,  but  not under  both.   Similarly,  Section 141(1)  also  crystalises that right to  claim  compensation under  Section  140  is in addition to the  right  to  claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of the  Act or any other law for the time being in force.  Sub- section  (2) further provides that if the claimant has filed an  application for compensation under Section 140 and  also in  pursuance  of  any  right  on  the  principle  of  fault liability,  the claim for compensation under Section 140  is to  be  disposed  of in the first place and as  provided  in sub-section (3) the amount received under sub-section (2) of Section  140 is to be adjusted while paying the compensation on  the principle of fault liability.  On the basis of fault liability  if additional amount is required to be paid  then the  claimant  is entitled to get the same but there  is  no provision  for  refund of the amount received under  Section 140(2),  even  if  the  Claims   Tribunal  arrives  at   the conclusion  that  the claimant was not entitled to  get  any compensation  on the principle of fault liability.  Further, Section  144 gives overriding effect to the provisions  made under  Chapter  X  by providing that the provisions  of  the chapter   shall  have  effect   notwithstanding  any   thing contained  in  any provision of the Act or of any other  law for  the time being in force.  From the aforesaid  Sections,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

one  aspect  is  abundantly  clear   that  right  to   claim compensation  on  the  basis  of  no-fault  liability  under Section   140  is  in  addition  to  the  right   to   claim compensation on the principle of fault liability or right to get  compensation  under  any  other law.   Such  amount  is required  to  be reduced from the amount payable  under  the fault  liability or compensation which may be received under any other law.  If nothing is payable under the Act then the claimant  is  not required to refund the amount received  by him.   As  against this, there is specific departure in  the scheme envisaged for paying compensation under Section 163A. Section   163A  nowhere  provides   that  this  payment   of compensation  on  no  fault  liability   on  the  basis   of structured  formula  is in addition to the liability to  pay compensation   in   accordance  with   the  right   to   get compensation  on the principle of fault liability and unless otherwise  provided for the same cause, compensation  cannot be paid again.

Provisions for refund of compensation if compensation is received under any other law or under the Act:

   Further,  as the legislature has not provided for refund or  adjustment of compensation received under the Act  and compensation  payable under Section 163A, it would mean that Scheme  of payment of compensation under Section 163A is  in alternative  to determination of compensation under  Section 168.   As  stated  above, sections 140(5)  and  141(3)  make provisions  for reduction of compensation paid under Section 140.   Under proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 140,  the amount  of such compensation which the claimant is  entitled to  receive  under any other law is required to  be  reduced from the amount of compensation payable under Section 140 or under  Section 163A.  Under Section 141(3), if a person gets the  compensation on principle of fault liability, then also provision  is  made for adjustment of compensation  received under  section  140.   There  is   no  such  provision   for adjustment  of compensation received under section 163A from the compensation receivable under the Act on the principle of  fault.   Similarly, section 161 provides for payment  of compensation  in  case  of hit and  run  motor  accidents. Under  Section  161(3), in cases in respect of the death  of any  person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed  sum of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid as compensation  and in  case of grievous hurt, the amount fixed is  Rs.12,500/-. Thereafter,  under Section 162, the legislature has provided for  refund  of compensation paid under Section 161  on  the principle  of hit and run motor accident by providing that the  payment  of  compensation under Section  161  shall  be subject to the condition that if any compensation is awarded under  any other provision of this Act or any other  law or   otherwise,  so  much  amount  as  is  equal  to   the compensation  paid  under  Section  161 is  required  to  be adjusted  or refunded to the insurer.  Under section 162(2), duty  is  cast  on the Tribunal, Court  or  other  authority awarding  such  compensation  to  verify as  to  whether  in respect  of  such death or bodily injury,  compensation  has already  been paid under Section 161 and to make  adjustment as  required thereunder.  Result isclaimant is not entitled to  have additional compensation but at the same time he can proceed by filing application under Section 165 or under the Workmen  Compensation  Act (i.e.  other law) and if he  gets compensation under either of the said provisions, the amount paid under Section 161 is to be refunded or adjusted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

   The  contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that  compensation payable under Section 163A is in addition to  the determination of compensation on the basis of  fault liability and thereafter it could be adjusted on the similar lines  provided  under Section 140 read with Section 141  or Section  162  cannot  be   accepted.   The  Legislature  has specifically  provided scheme of adjustment of  compensation under  Section 140 read with Section 141 and Section 162  if the claimants get compensation under the Act, while there is no   such  provisions  under   Section  163A.   Addition  or introduction   of  such  scheme  in  provisions   would   be impermissible.

   Use  of  different words such asany other law,  under this  section any other law for the time being in  force, provisions  of  this Act or any other provision  of  this Act in different sections:

   The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the proviso  to  sub-section (5) of Section 140 would mean  that even  in  case  where compensation is determined  under  the structured basis formula under Section 163A, the claimant is entitled  to  claim  compensation  on  the  basis  of  fault liability and if he gets higher amount on the basis of fault liability  then from that amount compensation which is  paid under Section 163A is to be reduced.  At the first blush the argument  of the learned counsel appears to be attractive as the  proviso  to sub-section (5) of section 140 is  to  some extent  ambiguous  and  vague.  It may mean that  amount  of compensation  given  under  any other law  may  include  the amount  payable on the basis of fault liability,  therefore, in  view  of said proviso compensation amount payable  under any other law is to be reduced from the compensation payable under Section 140 or 163A.  For appreciating this contention and  for  ascertaining  appropriate meaning  of  the  phrase compensation  under  any  other law for the time  being  in force,  the  proviso to sub-section (5) is required  to  be considered along with other provisions.  The scheme of other provision section 167 indicates that the aforesaid phrase is referable  to  compensation  payable   under  the  Workmens Compensation  Act,  1923  or any other law which may  be  in force  but  not to the determination of compensation  under the  Act,  and would not include the compensation which  is determined  under the provision of the Act.  This  section 167  in terms provides that where death of, or bodily injury to,  any  person gives rise to claim compensation under  the Act  and  also under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923,  such person  cannot  claim  compensation  under  both  the  Acts. Further,  in  Section 140(5), the legislature has  used  the words  under any other law for the time being in force and under  any other law.  In Section 141 (1), the legislature has  used the phrase under any other provision of this  Act or  of  any  other  law for the time being  in  force.   In sub-section  (2), the legislature has specifically  provided that  a  claim for compensation under Section 140  shall  be disposed   of  as  expeditiously  as  possible   and   where compensation  is  also claimed in pursuance of any right  on principle  of fault, the application under Section 140 is to be  disposed  of in first place.  Whereas, there is no  such reference  for  payment of compensation under Section  163A. Further,  in  Section 161(2), the legislature has  used  the phrase  any  other  law for the time being  in  force  and provisions  of  this Act.  Similarly, in Section 162,  the legislature  has used the words under any other  provisions of  this  Act or any other law or otherwise.  As  against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

this,  in  Section  163A, legislature has  used  the  phrase notwithstanding  anything  contained in this Act or in  any other   law  for  the  time   being  in  force.   When  the Legislature  has  taken care of using different  phrases  in different  sections, normally different meaning is  required to  be  assigned  to the language used  by  the  Legislature unless  context otherwise requires.  However, in relation to the  same  subject matter, if different words  of  different import  are  used in the same statute, there is  presumption that  they  are not used in the same sense.  {Re:  Board  of Revenue  v.   Arthur Paul AIR 1956 SC 35 at 38}.   In  this light,  particularly Section 141 which provides for right to claim  compensation under any other provision of this  Act or  of any other law for the time being in force,  proviso to  sub-section  (5) of Section 140 would mean that it  does not  provide  for  deduction or adjustment  of  compensation payable  under  the Act, that is, on the principle of  fault liability  which  is  to be determined  under  Section  168. Specific Language of Section 163A including its heading:

   Lastly,  for interpretation and construction of  Section 163A,  we  would  refer to its heading  and  language.   The heading is Special provisions as to payment of compensation on  structured formula basis.  At the outset, we would make it clear that for interpretation of the words of Section the language  of  the  heading  cannot be used  to  control  the operation of the Section, but at the same time being part of the  statute  it prima-facie furnishes some clue as  to  the meaning  and  purpose of Section.  [Re:  K.P.   Varghese  v. ITO  [(1982)  1 SCR p.629 at 647].  In case of ambiguity  or doubt heading can be referred to as an aid in construing the provision.   This heading indicates that the legislature has envisaged  special  provision  for  paying  compensation  on structural  formula basis instead of paying the compensation by long drawn litigation after establishing fault liability. Section    also    begins     with    non-obstante    clause notwithstanding  anything contained in this Act or any  law for the time being in force. This would mean that it is not subject  to any adjudication of right to claim  compensation as  provided under the Act.  The owner of the motor  vehicle or   the  authorised  insurer  would   be  liable   to   pay compensation due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.   Section  163-B  further   clarifies  that   claim petition  can  be  filed either under Section 140  or  under Section 163A but not under both sections.

   The  learned counsel for the claimants however submitted that  if  we compare the language used in Sections 163A  and 140(1),  it would be apparent that Section 140  contemplates payment  of  compensation by the owner of the  vehicle.   As against   this,  Section  163A   contemplates   payment   of compensation  by  the  owner of the  vehicle  or  authorised insurer.   It  is  submitted that even if we read  the  said phrase as owner of the motor vehicle of authorised insurer as owner of the motor vehicle or authorised insurer on the assumption  that of is wrongly used, then also it is their contention that Section 163A envisages payment either by the authorised insurer or by the owner of the motor vehicle.  It has  wider  implication and, therefore, compensation  beyond maximum  of  Rs.50000/- is provided in Second  Schedule  and hence  the  payment  under  Section   163A  should  not   be considered  as alternative to payment of compensation  under the  fault liability.  In our view, it is true that  Section 140  talks  of payment of compensation by the owner  of  the vehicle, while Section 163A after reading of as or would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

mean  that  owner of the vehicle or the  authorised  insurer would be liable to pay compensation under Section 163A.  But that  would not make any difference because determination of compensation  under  Section  163A is final and  not  as  an interim  measure.   As  stated above,  the  legislature  has deliberately  not  provided  that it is in addition  to  the compensation  payable  on the principle of fault  liability. There is no provision for adjusting the compensation payable under Section 163A with the other payment on fault liability under  the  Act.   In  the result,  the  contention  of  the claimants  that right to get compensation under Section 163A is additional to claim compensation on no fault liability is rejected  for  the  following reasons:  - (1)  There  is  no specific  provision  in  the  Act to the  effect  that  such compensation  is  in  addition to the  compensation  payable under  the Act.  Wherever the Legislature wanted to  provide additional  compensation, it has done so.  [Sections 140 and 141]

   (2)  In  case  where compensation is paid  on  no  fault liability under sections 140 and 161 in case of hit and run motor accidents, the Legislature has provided adjustment or refund  of the said compensation in case where  compensation is  determined  and payable under the award on the basis  of fault  liability under section 168 of the Act.  There is  no such procedure for refund or adjustment of compensation paid where the compensation is paid under Section 163A.

   (3) The words under any other law for the time being in force would certainly have different meaning from the words under this Act or under any other provision of this Act

   (4)  In view of the non-obstante clause notwithstanding anything  contained  in this Act the provisions of  Section 163A  would  exclude  determination of compensation  on  the principle of fault liability.

   (5)  The procedure of giving compensation under  Section 163A  is  inconsistent  with the  procedure  prescribed  for awarding  compensation  on fault liability.   Under  section 163A  compensation  is  awarded without proof of  any  fault while  for  getting  compensation  on  the  basis  of  fault liability  claimant  is  required  to  prove  wrongful  act, neglect  or default of the owner of the vehicle or  vehicles concerned.

   (6)  Award  of  compensation under section  163A  is  on predetermined  formula  for payment of compensation to  road accident  victims  and  that  formula  itself  is  based  on criteria  similar  to  determining  the  compensation  under section 168.  The object was to avoid delay in determination of compensation.

   In the result, the question involved in these matters is answered  accordingly.   The appeals filed by the  Insurance Companies  are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders are  quashed and set aside.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

   Before  parting with the judgment, we would like to draw the  attention  of the Central Government for  revision  and appropriate  correction  of  the   Second  Schedule,   which provides  for payment of compensation on structured  formula basis, by exercise of its power under Section 163A(3).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

   The  learned  counsel for the parties submitted that  in U.P.  State Road Transport Corporation and others v.  Trilok Chandra and others [(1996) 4 SCC 362 Para 18] this Court has pointed out errors in the Second Schedule thus:  We must at once  point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount  worked  out  in the Schedule  suffers  from  several defects.  For example, in Item 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the  multiplier is shown to be Rs.3000.  The total should be 3000x  15=45,000  but the same is worked out  at  Rs.60,000. Similarly,  in the second item the multiplier is 16 and  the annual  income  is  Rs  9000;  the total  should  have  been Rs.1,44,000  but  is  shown to be Rs.1,71,000.   To  put  it briefly,  the  table abounds in such mistakes.  Neither  the tribunals  nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner.   It can  only  be  used as a guide.  Besides, the  selection  of multiplier  cannot  in all cases be solely dependant on  the age  of  the  deceased.   For example, if  the  deceased,  a bachelor,  dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are  his parents,  age  of the parents would also be relevant in  the choice of the multiplier.  But these mistakes are limited to actual  calculations only and not in respect of other items. What  we propose to emphasize is that the multiplier  cannot exceed  18 years purchase factor.  This is the  improvement over  the  earlier  position that ordinarily it  should  not exceed  16.   We thought it necessary to state  the  correct legal  position  as  courts and tribunals are  using  higher multiplier  as  in the present case where the Tribunal  used the  multiplier  of  24 which the High Court raised  to  34, thereby  showing lack of awareness of the background of  the multiplier  system  in Davies v.  Powell Duffryn  Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601 :  (1942) 1 All ER 657].

   In  addition, the learned counsel also pointed out  that in  case  of  fatal  accident and  disability  in  non-fatal accident,  it has been provided that notional income for the claimant  who  had  no  income prior to  accident  shall  be Rs.15000/-  per annum and still however the Second  Schedule provides   table  of  income   ranging  from  Rs.3000/-   to Rs.40000/-  and  the  brake-up  also does  not  provide  any calculation  for Rs.15000/-, as the columns in the  Schedule inter  alia  provide  for compensation for a  person  having income   of  Rs.12000/-,  and   thereafter  straightway   at Rs.18000/-.  The learned counsel also submitted that despite the  specific provision in Section 163A(3) that the  Central Government  may,  keeping  in view the cost  of  living,  by notification in Official Gazette from time to time amend the Schedule,  nothing has been done so far.  Further, by  order dated   30.8.2000,  this  Court   again  noticed  number  of anomalies  in the Second Schedule and, therefore, thought it fit  to  have assistance of either the Attorney  General  of India  or  the Solicitor General of India.  When the  matter was  called out on 15.12.2000, Mr.  Altaf Ahmad, ASG, stated before  the  Court  that the order passed by this  Court  on 30.8.2000  has  already  engaged serious  attention  of  the Ministry  of Surface Transport Department and the Government was considering the matter for bringing necessary correction in   the  Second  Schedule  of   the  Motor  Vehicles   Act. Thereafter,  we  again sought assistance of  the  Additional Solicitor  General on the interpretation of Section 163A and also  to verify whether there are corrections in the  Second Schedule.   Learned Additional Solicitor General stated that amendment might take some time.  In this view of the matter, we  think it would be appropriate if the Central  Government takes  necessary  action as early as possible under  Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

163A(3).

   Ordered accordingly.