KADIVAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by an order dated 28. 11. 1998 of the Second Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, refusing their prayer regarding payment of the full sum finally awarded to them on the basis of the principle of fault, over and above and independent of the sum awarded on the principle of no fault liability, this revision petition has been preferred by the claimants.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that one Kayam Hussain died in a road accident involving a motor vehicle. Thereafter the petitioners, who were the legal representatives of the deceased, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation. During the pendency of their application a sum of Rs. 50,000 was granted to them under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the principle of no fault liability. That amount was duly paid. Thereafter a final award was passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of petitioners/ applicants for a sum of Rs. 2,86,180 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. An amount of Rs. 2,93,903 was accordingly deposited by the respondent insurance company after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000 awarded and already paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application before the Second Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for direction to the non-applicant insurance company to pay Rs. 50,000 more together with interest thereon, in all amounting to Rs. 92,695. 70. The petitioners claimed that the final award was independent of the amount of the interim award on the basis of no fault liability and that when there was no mention in the final award about reduction of the amount of the said interim award from the final award then the learned Tribunal should have ordered for payment of the sum under the final award independent of the amount of interim award. Disagreeing with the contentions of the petitioners the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE contentions of the petitioners before this court were the same as those put forward before the Tribunal and on the basis of those contentions it was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the learned Tribunal was bad in law.