New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others

G.L. Gupta, J.—This is writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 6.8.1999, passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, has been called in question.

The relevant facts are these. Abdul Salam (deceased) and others were travelling in bus No. RJ-14-P-0111 belonging to R.S.R.T.C. on 21.4.1992. There was collision of the bus with truck No. RNG 218. The legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Salam and the injured filed claim petitions before the M.A.C.T., Jaipur. The learned Judge of the Tribunal passed an order u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''the Act''), awarding Rs. 25,000 to the claimants on the principle of ''no fault liability''. This amount was deposited by the petitioner insurance company, who was the insurer of the truck. The claim petition was finally decided on 28.9.1998, wherein the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the bus and there was no fault of the driver of the truck. The Tribunal passed an award only against the R.S.R.T.C. and its driver. Thereafter, the petitioner insurance company filed an application before the Tribunal to direct the R.S.R.T.C. to pay Rs. 25,000 to it, which were paid by the petitioner u/s 140 of the Act to the claimants. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 6.8.99. Hence, this writ petition.

Mr. Bardar, pointing out that the petitioner had to pay Rs. 25,000 to the claimants under the orders of the Tribunal and the Tribunal ultimately has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, contends that the R.S.R.T.C. is liable to refund the amount to the petitioner.

There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Bardar. The amount of Rs. 25,000 u/s 140 of the Act is payable on the principle of ''no fault liability''. In other words, even if there was no fault of the driver of the truck, yet the amount could be ordered to be paid by the petitioner insurance company to the claimants. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act, it is provided that the amount paid under the ''no fault liability'' should be adjusted in the final award and the insurer is entitled to recover the excess amount from the person to whom the amount was paid. Under this provision, the amount can be recovered or adjusted from the amount granted to the claimant as compensation. There is no provision whereby the insurance company can recover the amount from any person, other than the claimant. There is also a provision u/s 162 of the Act for the refund in certain cases of compensation paid u/s 161 of the Act. But, there is no provision for the refund of the amount paid u/s 140 of the Act by the owner of other vehicle involved in the accident.

Since the compensation paid u/s 140 of the Act is on the principle of ''no fault liability'', the Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the refund of the amount from the R.S.R.T.C. The petitioner insurance company is free to approach any other forum for the recovery of the said amount, but such recovery cannot be made under the provisions of the Act.

There being no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.