JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THESE writ petitions and connected first appeals involve common questions of law relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act'. The constitutional validity of certain other provisions of the Act is also sought to be challenged and since the questions are common in all the cases, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment)Act, 1994 came into force on 14. 11. 1994. Section 163-A of the amended Act provides for payment of compensation for death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident in accordance with a structured formula contained in the Second Schedule. Sub-section (1) of the said section says that 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 or 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 of the victim, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of the said section also provides that in any claim for compensation under that section, 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. Subsection (3) of the said section provides that 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. By the Amending act of 1994 the legislature has increased the compensation payable under section 140 to Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000. Subsection (5) has been added to the said section with a proviso whereby the amount of compensation paid under any law is to be reduced by the amount paid under sections 140 and 163-A of the Act. Under the amended section 166 (2) application can be made in the Tribunal where the accident occurred or where the claimant resides or carries on business or where the owners of the vehicle reside. By section 53 of the amending Act, sub-section (3) of section 166 has been omitted and thus the limitation for lodging claim stands deleted.
(3.) ON behalf of Mumbai Municipal corporation (for short 'corporation') it has been contended that section 163-A of the Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the constitution. It is contended that section 163-A gives large sums as compensation without proving negligence or wrong and without proof of loss and, therefore, the said section is opposed to the basic principle of law as accepted in India. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118 (SC ). It is urged that the provision of 'no fault liability' in the nature of limited immediate humanitarian interim relief to a victim of accident or his dependants can be justified. Thereafter damages have to be proved in the normal course. Therefore, the limited relief under section 92-A or section 140 may be valid but section 163-A which gives substantial sums as compensation without proof of negligence of the person from whom the amount is claimed, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the Second schedule abounds with mistakes and is totally unintelligible. In this connection the observations of the Supreme Court in v. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), were heavily relied upon. It is also contended that the provisions of the amended section 166 (2)which give a choice to the claimants of a forum where neither defendant resides nor cause of action arose are extremely harsh for defendants and arbitrary removal of limitation by deleting section 166 (3) exposes them to compensation claims even after lapse of several years.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.