Nabeesa vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Another

J.B. Koshy, J.—The petitioner herein is the first petitioner in O. P. (MW) No. 2420 of 1996. The petitioner''s husband died due to a motor accident and the petitioner filed the above claim petition for Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the death of her husband. The petitioner also claimed for interim payment u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :

"140. 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 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 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."

Exhibit P-2, interim award, was passed directing the insurance company to deposit Rs. 50,000. The insurance company complied with exhibit P-2 interim award and deposited the amount. The petitioner was permitted to release Rs. 10,000 out of the Rs. 50,000 deposited. The petitioner wants the entire amount to be released as it is submitted that for hospital expenses, burial and other expenses the above amount is required and there is no justification in retaining the balance amount.

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly provides that it is for the expeditious payment of the limited amount by way of compensation to meet the urgent necessities and that cannot be retained and it should be released. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, Supreme Court observed as follows (page 358) :

"It is thus evident that Section 92A was in the nature of a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to adopt a construction which advances the beneficent purposes underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose. The same approach has been adopted by this court while construing the provisions of the Act. (See Motor Owners'' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi [1982] 52 Comp Cas 454 (SC) : [1981] AC 507 and Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, ."

In the decision in Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co. [1996] 2 KLT 876 (SC) principles were enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding releasing of compensation awarded and the Supreme Court did not stay disbursement of the amount u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the amount awarded and deposited u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be asked to be deposited and it should be released to the claimant so long as no other disputes are there.

Therefore, the original petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to pass immediate orders for releasing the amount.

Copy of this judgment may be forwarded to the first respondent at the expenses of the petitioner immediately.