{"id":132344,"date":"2001-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001"},"modified":"2015-04-16T19:21:38","modified_gmt":"2015-04-16T13:51:38","slug":"the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Shah<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, D.P. Mohapatra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2568  of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2569\t of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2570\t of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2571\t of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2572\t of  2001\nAppeal (civil)\t2573\t of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHANSRAJBHAI V. KODALA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. Shah & D.P. Mohapatra\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\nShah, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    The common question involved in these appeals is whether
\nthe  compensation  payable under Section 163A of  the  Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as
\nper  the  structured formula basis is in addition or in\t the
\nalternative  to the determination of the compensation on the
\nprinciple  of fault liability, after following the procedure
\nprescribed under the Act?\n<\/p>\n
    For\t convenience  we would refer to few facts  in  Civil
\nAppeal\tarising\t out of S.L.P.\t(Civil) No.8742 of  1999  in
\nwhich the judgment and order dated 4.8.98 passed by the High
\nCourt  of  Gujarat  at Ahmedabad in FA No.2473\tof  1996  is
\nchallenged.    Petition\t  claiming   compensation   of\t Rs.
\n2,50,000\/-  was\t filed\tbefore the Claims  Tribunal  on\t the
\nground\tthat  one bus bearing registration No.\tG.J.3T\t9815
\nmet  with  an accident and Mayur, son of respondent Nos.   1
\nand  2,\t aged about 6 years died as a result  thereof.\t The
\nclaimants  also\t filed an application under Section 163A  of
\nthe  Act  for  interim compensation  on\t structured  formula
\nbasis.\t The Insurance Company- appellant contended that  as
\nthe  bus  was not insured with it, it was not liable to\t pay
\ncompensation.  The Claims Tribunal granted the prayer of the
\nrespondents  and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,62,000\/-
\nto  the respondents as interim compensation.  The appellants
\npreferred appeal before the High Court contending inter alia
\nthat  in  order\t to provide quicker relief to  the  accident
\nvictims,  Section  163A\t was inserted and is not  meant\t for
\ninterim\t  compensation\t but  is  an  alternative   to\t the
\ndetermination  of  compensation under Section 168.   It\t was
\nfurther\t contended  that the application under Section\t163A
\nwas   a\t  substantial  application   and  not\tan   interim
\napplication.   The  High Court by judgment and\torder  dated
\n4.8.1998  held\tthat  the award under section  163A  was  an
\ninterim\t award\tand the claimants were entitled\t to  proceed
\nfurther with determination of compensation under Section 168
\nof the Act.  That order is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t determining  the question involved, the scheme\t for
\npayment\t of  compensation  under the Act can be\t divided  as
\nunder:\t–\n<\/p>\n
    (i)\t Section 140For no-fault liability in case of death
\nor disablement;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii) Section 161In case of hit and run motor accidents,
\nwhere  the  identity of the vehicle cannot  be\tascertained
\ncompensation  amount  is  Rs.25000\/- in case  of  death\t and
\nRs.12500\/- in case of grievous hurt;\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)  Section 163ASpecial provisions as to payment\t of
\ncompensation   on   structured\t   formula   basis   without
\nestablishing  or  proving  any wrongful act  or\t neglect  or
\ndefault of any person;\n<\/p>\n
    (iv)  Section 168Determination of compensation  payable
\nin  pursuance  of  any\tright  on  the\tprinciple  of  fault
\nliability.\n<\/p>\n
    Chapter   XII  provides  for   constitution\t of   Claims
\nTribunals  by  the  State  Government  for  the\t purpose  of
\nadjudicating  the claims for compensation and the  procedure
\nthereof.   The Claims Tribunal is required to determine\t the
\napplication for payment of compensation either under section
\n140  or section 163A on the basis of no-fault liability\t and
\nalso  on  the basis of right to receive the compensation  on
\nthe  principle\tof  fault liability on the basis of  Law  of
\nTorts,\tas  modified by the Fatal Accidents Act,  1855\tread
\nwith Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t appreciating  the  rival contentions, it  would  be
\nnecessary  to  refer  to  the  relevant\t provisions  of\t the
\nSections  140 (Chapter X), 161, 162, 163A, 163B (Chapter XI)
\nand 167 (Chapter XII) of the Act which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
    140.  Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on
\nthe principle of no fault.\n<\/p>\n
    (1) Whether death or permanent disablement of any person
\nhas  resulted  from an accident arising out of the use of  a
\nmotor  vehicle\tor motor vehicles, the owner of the  vehicle
\nshall,\tor,  as the case may be, the owners of the  vehicles
\nshall,\tjointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation
\nin  respect of such death or disablement in accordance\twith
\nthe provisions of this section.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t The  amount of compensation which shall be  payable
\nunder  sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person
\nshall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount
\nof compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of
\nthe permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum
\nof twenty-five thousand rupees.\n<\/p>\n
    (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1),
\nthe  claimant  shall not be required to plead and  establish
\nthat  the death or permanent disablement in respect of which
\nthe claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect
\nor default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles
\nconcerned or of any other person.\n<\/p>\n
    (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall
\nnot  be\t defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect  or
\ndefault of the person in respect of whose death or permanent
\ndisablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of
\ncompensation  recoverable  in  respect\tof  such  death\t  or
\npermanent  disablement be reduced on the basis of the  share
\nof  such  person  in the responsibility for  such  death  or
\npermanent disablement.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t Notwithstanding  anything contained in\t sub-section
\n(2)  regarding the death or bodily injury to any person, for
\nwhich\tthe  owner  of\tthe   vehicle  is  liable  to\tgive
\ncompensation   for  relief,  he\t is   also  liable  to\t pay
\ncompensation  under  any  other law for the  time  being  in
\nforce;\n<\/p>\n
    Provided  that  the\t amount of such compensation  to  be
\ngiven  under any other law shall be reduced from the  amount
\nof  compensation payable under this section or under section
\n163A.\n<\/p>\n
    141.   (1)\tProvisions  as\tto   other  right  to  claim
\ncompensation  for  death or permanent disablement. (1)\tThe
\nright  to claim compensation under section 140 in respect of
\ndeath  or  permanent disablement of any person shall  be  in
\naddition to any other right, except the right to claim under
\nthe  scheme  referred to in section 163A (such\tother  right
\nhereafter  in  this section referred to as the right on\t the
\nprinciple of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof
\nunder  any  other provision of this Act or of any other\t law
\nfor the time being in force.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t A  claim  for\tcompensation under  section  140  in
\nrespect\t of  death  or permanent disablement of\t any  person
\nshall  be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where
\ncompensation  is  claimed  in  respect\t of  such  death  or
\npermanent   disablement\t under\tsection\t  140  and  also  in
\npursuance  of any right on the principle of fault, the claim
\nfor  compensation under section 140 shall be disposed of  as
\naforesaid in the first place.\n<\/p>\n
    (3)\t Notwithstanding  anything contained in\t sub-section
\n(1),  where in respect of the death or permanent disablement
\nof  any person, the person liable to pay compensation  under
\nsection 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance
\nwith  the  right  on the principle of fault, the  person  so
\nliable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and<\/p>\n
    (a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is
\nless  than the amount of the second-mentioned  compensation,
\nhe   shall   be\t liable\t to   pay  (in\taddition)   to\t the
\nfirst-mentioned\t  compensation)\t  only\tso   much   of\t the
\nsecond-mentioned  compensation as is equal to the amount  by
\nwhich it exceeds the first mentioned compensation;\n<\/p>\n
    (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is
\nequal  to  or more than the amount of the second-  mentioned
\ncompensation,\the   shall  not\t be   liable  to   pay\t the
\nsecond-mentioned compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    161.   Special provisions as to compensation in case  of
\nhit  and  run motor accident. (1) For the purposes of  this
\nsection, section 162 and section 163<\/p>\n
    (a)\t grievous  hurt shall have the same meaning as\tin
\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t hit  and  run motor accident  means  an  accident
\narising\t out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles
\nthe  identity  whereof\tcannot be ascertained  in  spite  of
\nreasonable efforts for the purpose;\n<\/p>\n
    (c) scheme means the scheme framed under section 163.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Notwithstanding  anything contained in the  General
\nInsurance  Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972)
\nor  any\t other\tlaw  for  the time being  in  force  or\t any
\ninstrument  having  the force of law, the General  Insurance
\nCorporation  of India formed under section 9 of the said Act
\nand  the insurance companies for the time being carrying  on
\ngeneral insurance business in India shall provide for paying
\nin  accordance\twith  the  provisions of this  Act  and\t the
\nscheme, compensation in respect of the death of, or grievous
\nhurt to, persons resulting from hit and run motor accidents.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tSubject to the provisions of this Act and the
\nscheme, there shall be paid as compensation<\/p>\n
    (a) in respect of the death of any person resulting from
\na  hit\tand run motor accident, a fixed sum  of\t twenty-five
\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting
\nfrom  a\t hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum  of  twelve
\nthousand five hundred rupees.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t The  provisions of sub-section (1) of\tsection\t 166
\nshall  apply  for  the purpose of  making  applications\t for
\ncompensation  under  this  section  as they  apply  for\t the
\npurpose\t of making applications for compensation referred to
\nin that sub- section.\n<\/p>\n
    162.  Refund in certain cases of compensation paid under
\nsection\t 161. (1) The payment of compensation in respect of
\nthe  death of, or grievous hurt to, any person under section
\n161   shall  be\t subject  to   the  condition  that  if\t any
\ncompensation  (hereafter in this sub-section referred to  as
\nthe other compensation) or other amount in lieu of or by way
\nof  satisfaction  of a claim for compensation is awarded  or
\npaid  in  respect of such death or grievous hurt  under\t any
\nother  provision of this Act or any other law or otherwise
\nso  much of the other compensation or other amount aforesaid
\nas is equal to the compensation paid under section 161 shall
\nbe refunded to the insurer.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Before\t awarding  compensation\t in  respect  of  an
\naccident  involving  the death of, or bodily injury to,\t any
\nperson\tarising\t out of the use of a motor vehicle or  motor
\nvehicles under any provision of this Act (other than section\n<\/p>\n
161)  or  any  other  law,  the\t Tribunal,  Court  or  other
\nauthority  awarding  such  compensation shall verify  as  to
\nwhether\t  in  respect  of  such\t  death\t or  bodily   injury
\ncompensation  has already been paid under section 161 or  an
\napplication  for  payment of compensation is  pending  under
\nthat  section,\tand such Tribunal, Court or other  authority
\nshall,<\/p>\n
    (a)\t if compensation has already been paid under section
\n161,  direct  the  person  liable to  pay  the\tcompensation
\nawarded\t by it to refund to the insurer, so much thereof  as
\nis required to be refunded in accordance with the provisions
\nof sub- section (1);\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t if  an application for payment of  compensation  is
\npending\t under section 161 forward the particulars as to the
\ncompensation awarded by it to the insurer.\n<\/p>\n
    Explanation.For  the  purpose of this  sub-section,\t an
\napplication  for  compensation\tunder section 161  shall  be
\ndeemed to be pending<\/p>\n
    (i) if such application has been rejected, till the date
\nof the rejection of the application, and<\/p>\n
    (ii)  in  any  other case, till the date of\t payment  of
\ncompensation in pursuance of the application.\n<\/p>\n
    163A.   Special provisions as to payment of compensation
\non  structured\tformula basis.(1) Notwithstanding  anything
\ncontained in this Act or in any other law for the time being
\nin force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of
\nthe  motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable
\nto  pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to
\naccident   arising  out\t of  the   use\tof  motor   vehicle,
\ncompensation,  as  indicated in the Second Schedule, to\t the
\nlegal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
    Explanation.For  the  purposes  of\tthis   sub-section,
\npermanent  disability  shall  have the\tsame  meaning  and
\nextent\tas  in\tthe Workmens Compensation Act, 1923  (8\t of
\n1923).\n<\/p>\n
    (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1),
\nthe  claimant  shall not be required to plead  or  establish
\nthat  the death or permanent disablement in respect of which
\nthe  claim  has\t been made was due to any  wrongful  act  or
\nneglect\t or default of the owner of the vehicle or  vehicles
\nconcerned or of any other person.\n<\/p>\n
    (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost
\nof living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time
\nto time amend the Second Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
    163B.   Option  to file claim in certain cases.Where  a
\nperson\tis entitled to claim compensation under section\t 140
\nand  section  163A, he shall file the claim under either  of
\nthe said sections and not under both.\n<\/p>\n
    167.   Option  regarding  claims   for  compensation  in
\ncertain\t cases.Notwithstanding\tanything contained  in\tthe
\nWorkmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death
\nof,  or\t bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a  claim
\nfor compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens
\nCompensation  Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation
\nmay  without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X  claim
\nsuch  compensation under either of those Acts but not  under
\nboth.\n<\/p>\n
    Further,  Section 164 empowers the Central Government to
\nmake  rules  for  the purpose of carrying  into\t effect\t the
\nprovisions of Chapter XI which include making such rules for\n<\/p>\n
(a) the forms to be used for the purpose of the said chapter
\nand  (f) the identification by certificates or otherwise  of
\npersons\t or  vehicles  exempted from the provisions  of\t the
\nChapter.   Learned  counsel  appearing\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents,  however, submitted that uptil now, the Central
\nGovernment  has not framed any such rules as provided  under
\nSection\t 164.\tThereafter,  Chapter XII deals\twith  Claims
\nTribunals.  Section 165 provides for establishment of Claims
\nTribunals  for\tthe purpose of adjudicating upon claims\t for
\ncompensation  in respect of accidents involving a death\t of,
\nor  bodily injury to, persons arising out of or use of motor
\nvehicles,  or  damages to any property of a third  party  so
\narising,  or  both,  and   Explanation\tto  sub-section\t (1)
\nprovides  that\tclaims\tfor   compensation  in\trespect\t of
\naccidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons
\narising out of the use of motor vehicle includes claims for
\ncompensation  under  Section  140   and\t 163A.\t Hence,\t the
\napplication  claiming compensation under Section 140 or 163A
\nand\/or\ton the right to claim compensation on the  principle
\nof fault liability is required to be filed before the Claims
\nTribunal.  Section 166 provides who can make application for
\nsuch   compensation   and   where   it\t could\t be   filed.
\nAdditionally, sub-section (4) of section 166 makes provision
\nthat the Claims Tribunal shall treat the report of accidents
\nforwarded  to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as  an
\napplication  for compensation under the Act and\t sub-section
\n(6) of section 158 provides for submitting the report to the
\nClaims\tTribunal  by  the officer in charge  of\t the  police
\nstation\t as  soon as any information regarding any  accident
\ninvolving  death or bodily injury to any person is  recorded
\nor  report  under  Section  158 is  completed  by  a  police
\nofficer.   Section  168\t requires  the\tClaims\tTribunal  to
\ndetermine  the amount of compensation which appears to it to
\nbe  just and specify person or persons to whom\tcompensation
\nis  to\tbe paid by making an award.  Such award\t shall\talso
\nspecify\t the  amount which shall be paid by the\t insurer  or
\nowner  or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident  or
\nby  all\t or  any of them, as the case may  be.\t Proviso  to
\nsub-section  (1)  of Section 168 makes it clear that  in  an
\napplication  which is filed under Section 165, if there is a
\nclaim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of death
\nor  permanent  disablement of any person, the same is to  be
\ndisposed  of in first place in accordance with provisions of
\nChapter X (i.e.\t Sections 140 to 143).\n<\/p>\n
Legislative HistoryStatement of Objects and Reasons:\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  provisions quoted above, it appears  that  no
\nspecific  mention is made that remedy provided under Section
\n163A   is  in  addition\t or  in\t the  alternative   to\t the
\ndetermination\tof  compensation  on   the  basis  of  fault
\nliability.   Section 163A was not there in the original\t Act
\nof  1988.   It\twas inserted by Act No.\t 54 of\t1994  w.e.f.
\n14.11.1994.   Hence, for arriving at the proper\t conclusion,
\nit  would  be  necessary to cull out legislative  intent  by
\nreferring  to the legislative history as well as Objects and
\nReasons for inserting the said provision.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Law Commission of India in its 119th Report in\t the
\nIntroductory  Chapter  observed [para 1.6]  that  previously
\nthere  was  recommendation  for inserting provision  in\t the
\nMotor  Vehicles Act to extend protection to victims of\thit
\nand  run  accidents  where the person liable  to  pay  such
\ncompensation  or his whereabouts cannot be ascertained after
\nreasonable  effort  by providing that in such an event,\t the
\nperson\tentitled  to such compensation shall be entitled  to
\nreceive\t it  from  the State.  In para 1.7  for\t introducing
\nprovision for no fault liability, the Commission observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
    By\t1980,  a wind was blowing that compensation to\tthe
\nvictims\t of  motor  accidents  should be by  way  of  social
\nsecurity  and  the  liability  to   pay\t the  same  must  be
\nNo-fault  liability.   The law, as it stands  at  present,
\nsave  the  provision in Chapter VIIA, inserted by the  Motor
\nVehicles  (Amendment)  Act, 1982, enables the victim or\t the
\ndependants  of\tthe victim in the event of death to  recover
\ncompensation  on proof of fault of the person liable to\t pay
\ncompensation  and which fault caused the harm such as bodily
\ninjury\tor  death.  In the event of death of a victim  of  a
\nmotor  accident\t and  the  consequent  harm  caused  to\t his
\ndependants,  the question whether the person responsible for
\nthe  action causing harm had committed a fault or it was  an
\ninevitable  accident,  is hardly relevant from the point  of
\nview of victim or his\/her dependants.  The expanding notions
\nof  social  security and social justice envisaged  that\t the
\nliability   to\tpay  compensation   must  be  a\t  No-fault
\nliability.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was repealed by\t the
\npresent Act, the Legislature introduced Chapter VII-A in the
\nMotor  Vehicles\t Act,  1939.  While  interpreting  the\tsaid
\nprovisions,  this  Court  in Gujarat  State  Road  Transport
\nCorporation, Ahmedabad v.  Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another<\/a>
\n[(1987) 3 SCR 404] referred to the aforesaid recommendations
\nmade by the Law Commission and observed thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
    When  the  Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was enacted  there
\nwere no motor vehicles on the roads in India.  Today, thanks
\nto  the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are
\nput  on\t the  road and the largest number  of  injuries\t and
\ndeaths are taking place on the roads on account of the motor
\nvehicles  accidents.   In  view of the fast  and  constantly
\nincreasing  volume  of traffic, the motor vehicles upon\t the
\nroads  may  be regarded to some extent as coming within\t the
\nprinciple  of  liability  defined in Rylands  v.   Fletcher,
\n[1868]\tL.R.  3 H.L.330, 340.  From the point of view of the
\npedestrian  the roads of this country have been rendered  by
\nthe  use  of the motor vehicles highly dangerous.  Hit\tand
\nrun  cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have
\ncaused the accidents are not known are increasing in number.
\nWhere a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured
\nor  killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he  or
\nhis  legal  representatives  as the case may  be  should  be
\nentitled  to  recover  damages if the  principle  of  social
\njustice should have any meaning at all.\t In order to meet to
\nsome  extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths
\nand  injuries  caused  in road accidents there\thas  been  a
\ncontinuous  agitation  through\tout the world  to  make\t the
\nliability   for\t damages  arising   out\t of  motor  vehicles
\naccidents  as  a liability without fault.  In order to\tmeet
\nthe  above social demand on the recommendation of the Indian
\nLaw  Commission\t Chapter  VIIA was introduced  in  the\tAct.
\nSections  92-A to 92-E of the Act are to be found in Chapter
\nVIIA.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Court\tfurther observed as under:  – This part\t of
\nthe  Act  is clearly a departure from the usual\t common\t law
\nprinciple that a claimant should establish negligence on the
\npart  of  the  owner or driver of the motor  vehicle  before
\nclaiming  any  compensation  for   the\tdeath  or  permanent
\ndisablement  caused on account of a motor vehicle  accident.
\nTo  that  extent the substantive law of the  country  stands
\nmodified.  The special provisions contained in section 109-A
\nto  section  109-C  of the Act providing for  a\t scheme\t for
\ngranting  relief to victims or the legal representatives  of
\nvictims\t of  hit and run motor vehicle accident\t cases\tis
\nanother novel effort on the part of the Government to remedy
\nthe  situation created by the modern society which has\tbeen
\nresponsible  for introducing so many fast moving vehicles on
\nroads.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter a Committee to Review the Provisions of Motor
\nVehicles  Act,\t1988 and Central Motor Vehicle\tRules,\t1989
\n(hereinafter  referred to as the Review Committee) was\tset
\nup  by\tthe Government of India in March 1990.\t The  Review
\nCommittee  in  its report suggested changes in a  number  of
\nprovisions in the Act.\tThe Review Committee considered that
\ndetermination  of the claims cases pending before the Claims
\nTribunal  takes\t a  long  time.\t   To  obviate\tsuch  delay,
\nproposals were made that finalisation of compensation claims
\nwould  greatly facilitate to the advantage of claimants, the
\nvehicle\t owners\t as  well as the insurance companies,  if  a
\nsystem\tof structured compensation can be introduced.  Under
\nsuch  scheme the affected party can have the option of their
\naccepting  the lump sum compensation as is notified in\tthat
\nscheme\tof structured compensation or of pursuing his  claim
\nthrough\t the  normal  channels.\t   Thereafter,\tthe   Review
\nCommittee  considered  the suggestion of  General  Insurance
\nCorporation  that  claimants should first file their  claims
\nwith  Motor  Accident Claims Tribunals and the\tinsurers  be
\nallowed\t six  months  time  to confirm\ttheir  prima  facie
\nliability  subject  to\tdefences available  under  the\tAct.
\nAfter such confirmation, the claimants should be required to
\nexercise  their\t option\t for conciliation  under  Structured
\nCompensation Formula within stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n
    Finally,  the  Committee also observed:   Para  4.11.2:
\n.In  case  a  claimant\topts  for  conciliation,  necessary
\nconsent\t award\tmay be given by MACT and if he does not\t opt
\nfor  it, he may proceed with regular Motor Accidents  Claims
\nTribunal   in\tthe  usual   course.   The  Committee\talso
\nrecommended  that  the\tdecision of the\t insurer  to  accept
\nliability  before the expiry of the stipulated period should
\nbe  the final one and after it is available it will be\topen
\nto  the\t insured to claim compensation under the  structured
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
    Further,  the  statement  of  objects  and\treasons\t for
\namending   the\t Act   inter\talia   mentions\t  that\t the
\nrecommendations\t of  the Review Committee were forwarded  to
\nthe State Governments for comments and they generally agreed
\nwith  these  recommendations.\tThe draft of  the  proposals
\nbased  on  the\trecommendation of the Review  Committee\t and
\nrepresentations\t from  the  public were\t placed\t before\t the
\nTransport Development Council for seeking their views in the
\nmatter.\t  The  Transport  Development Council  made  certain
\nsuggestions  and  the relevant suggestion is,(b)  providing
\nadequate  compensation to victims of road accidents  without
\ngoing  into long drawn procedure.  The proposed\t legislation
\ninter  alia  provide  for (h) increase in  the\tamount\tof
\ncompensation to the victims of hit and run cases;\n<\/p>\n
    (k)\t  a  new  pre-determined   formula  for\t payment  of
\ncompensation  to  road\taccident  victims on  the  basis  of
\nage\/income, which is more liberal and rational.\n<\/p>\n
    The next question iswhether the recommendations made by
\nthe  Review Committee are reflected in the provisions, which
\nare  inserted  by  the said Act.  It is contended  that\t the
\nrelevant   provisions\tnowhere\t provide   that\t  lump\t sum
\ncompensation  payable under the structured formula basis  is
\nalternative   and   optional  to    the\t  determination\t  of
\ncompensation  under  Section  168.   As\t stated\t above,\t the
\nLegislature has not specified or clarified that compensation
\npayable\t under\tSection\t 163-A is in the alternative  or  in
\naddition.   Therefore,\twe are referring to the reasons\t for
\ninserting  Section 163A in context of other provisions.\t For
\nthe  purpose of interpretation in such cases, this Court  in
\nUtkal  Contractors and Joinery P.  Ltd.\t & Ors.\t Vs.   State
\nof  Orissa  & Ors.  [(1987) 3 SCC 279] observed that  reason
\nfor  a\tstatute is a safest guide to its interpretation\t and
\nheld thus (P.288-89):  –\n<\/p>\n
    .The  reason for a statute is the safest guide to its
\ninterpretation.\t  The  words of a statute take their  colour
\nfrom the reason for it.\t How do we discover the reason for a
\nstatute?   There  are  external\t  and  internal\t aids.\t The
\nexternal  aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the
\nBill  is presented to Parliament, the reports of  committees
\nwhich  preceded\t the Bill and the reports  of  Parliamentary
\nCommittees.   Occasional  excursions  into  the\t debates  of
\nParliament  are permitted.  Internal aids are the  preamble,
\nthe scheme and the provisions of the Act.  Having discovered
\nthe reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the
\nwind,  the  interpreter may proceed ahead.  No provision  in
\nthe  statute and no word of the statute may be construed  in
\nisolation.  Every provision and every word must be looked at
\ngenerally  before  any provision or word is attempted to  be
\nconstrued.   The  setting  and the  pattern  are  important
\nAgain,\twhile  the words of an enactment are important,\t the
\ncontext is no less important.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis  context if we refer to the Review\t Committees
\nReport,\t the  reason  for enacting Section 163A is  to\tgive
\nearliest  relief  to  the  victims   of\t the  motor  vehicle
\naccidents.   The  Committee observed that  determination  of
\ncases  takes  long  time and, therefore, under a  system  of
\nstructural  compensation,  the compensation that is  payable
\nfor different classes of cases depending upon the age of the
\ndeceased,  the\tmonthly\t income at the time  of\t death,\t the
\nearning\t potential  in the case of minor, loss of income  on
\naccount\t of  loss  of  limb etc.  can be  notified  and\t the
\naffected  party can then have option of their accepting lump
\nsum compensation under the scheme of structural compensation
\nor  of pursuing his claim through the normal channels.\t The
\nReport\tof the Review Committee was considered by the  State
\nGovernments  and  comments were notified.   Thereafter,\t the
\nTransport Development Council made suggestions for providing
\nadequate  compensation to victims of road accidents  without
\ngoing  into  long drawn procedure.  As per the\tobjects\t and
\nreasons,  it is a new pre-determined formula for payment  of
\ncompensation  to  road\taccidents victims on  the  basis  of
\nage\/income which is more liberal and rational.\tOn the basis
\nof  the said recommendation after considering the Report  of
\nthe  Transport Development Council, the Bill was  introduced
\nwith   a   new\tpre-determined\t formula  for  payment\t of
\ncompensation  to  road\taccident  victims on  the  basis  of
\nage\/income  which  is  more   liberal  and  notional,  i.e.
\nSection 163A.  It is also apparent that compensation payable
\nunder  Section 163A is almost based on relevant criteria for
\ndetermining  the compensation such as annual income, age  of
\nthe victim and multiplier to be applied.  In addition to the
\nfigure\twhich  is arrived at on the basis of said  criteria,
\nschedule also provides that amount of compensation shall not
\nbe  less than Rs.50,000\/-.  It provides for fixed amount  of
\ngeneral\t damage\t in case of death such as (1) Rs.2000\/-\t for
\nfuneral\t expenses  (2) Rs.5000\/- for loss of  consortium  if
\nbeneficiary  is the spouse (3) Rs.2400\/- for loss of  estate
\n(4) for medical expenses supported by the bills, voucher not
\nexceeding  Rs.15000\/-.\t Similarly, for disability  in\tnon-
\nfatal  accident\t para  5  of   the  Schedule  provides\t for
\ndetermination  of  compensation\t on the basis  of  permanent
\ndisability.   Para 6 provides for notional income for  those
\nwho had no income prior to accident at Rs.15000\/- per annum.
\nThere  is  also provision for reduction of 1\/3rd  amount  of
\ncompensation  on  the assumption that the victim would\thave
\nincurred  the said amount towards maintaining himself had he
\nbeen  alive.   The  purpose of this Section and\t the  Second
\nSchedule  is  to  avoid long drawn litigation and  delay  in
\npayment\t of compensation to the victims or his heirs who are
\nin  dire need of relief.  If such affected claimant opts for
\naccepting  the\tlump-sum  compensation based  on  structured
\nformula, he would get relief at the earliest.  It also gives
\nvital advantage of not pleading or establishing any wrongful
\nact  or\t neglect  or default of the owner of  the  offending
\nvehicle\t or  vehicles.\tThis no fault liability\t appears  to
\nhave  been introduced on the basis of the suggestion of\t the
\nLaw  Commission to the effect that the expanding notions of
\nsocial\tsecurity and social justice envisage that  liability
\nto  pay\t compensation  must be no fault liability  and\tas
\nobserved  by  this  Court in Ramanbhais case  (Supra),\tin
\norder  to  meet\t to some extent the  responsibility  of\t the
\nsociety\t  to  the  deaths  and\t injuries  caused  in\troad
\naccidents.  However, this benefit can be availed of by\tthe
\nclaimant  only\tby  restricting his claim on  the  basis  of
\nincome at a slab of Rs.40,000\/- which is the highest slab in
\nthe  Second  Schedule which indicates that  the\t legislature
\nwanted\tto  give benefit of no fault liability to a  certain
\nlimit.\t This  would clearly indicate that the scheme is  in
\nalternative  to\t the determination of compensation on  fault
\nbasis  under  the  Act.\t  The object  underlining  the\tsaid
\namendment  is  to pay compensation without there  being\t any
\nlong  drawn litigation on an predetermined formula, which is
\nknown  as structured formula basis which itself is based  on
\nrelevant  criteria  for\t determining  compensation  and\t the
\nprocedure of paying compensation after determining the fault
\nis  done away.\tCompensation amount is paid without pleading
\nor  proof of fault, on the principle of social justice as  a
\nsocial\tsecurity  measure because of ever  increasing  motor
\nvehicles  accidents in a fast moving society.  Further,\t the
\nlaw  before  insertion of Section 163-A was  giving  limited
\nbenefit\t to  the  extent provided under Section 140  for  no
\nfault  liability and determination of compensation amount on
\nfault  liability  was  taking long time.  That\tmischief  is
\nsought\tto  be remedied by introducing Section 163A and\t the
\ndisease\t of delay is sought to be cured to a large extent by
\naffording  benefit  to\tthe victims  on\t structured  formula
\nbasis.\tFurther, if the question of determining compensation
\non  fault  liability  is  kept\talive  it  would  result  in
\nadditional  litigation\tand complications in case  claimants
\nfail  to establish liability of the owner of the  defaulting
\nvehicles.\n<\/p>\n
Use of specific words also and in addition in
\nSections 140 and 141:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t aforesaid conclusion gets support from the language
\nused  in  Sections 140, 141, 161 and 163A.  Sections 140  to
\n143  provide  for liability of the owner of the\t vehicle  in
\ncase  of  death\t or  permanent\tdisablement  of\t any  person
\nresulting  from\t an accident arising out of use of  a  motor
\nvehicle\t or  motor vehicles to pay compensation without\t any
\npleading or establishing that death or permanent disablement
\nwas due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner
\nor  owners  of the vehicle or vehicles.\t By way of  earliest
\nrelief, victim is entitled to get the amount of compensation
\nof  Rs.50,000\/- in case of death and Rs.25,000\/- in case  of
\npermanent  disablement.\t  It is further provided  that\tsuch
\nclaim  shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful\tact,
\nneglect\t or default of the person in respect of whose  death
\nor  permanent disablement has occurred.\t Sub-section (5)  of
\nSection\t 140  upon which much reliance is placed by  learned
\ncounsel for the Insurance Companies as well as the claimants
\nrequires  consideration and interpretation, which inter alia
\nprovides  that\towner of the vehicle is also liable  to\t pay
\ncompensation  under  any  other law for the  time  being  in
\nforce.\t The  word  also indicates that the owner  of  the
\nvehicle\t would\tbe additionally liable to  pay\tcompensation
\nunder  any  other  law\tfor the time being  in\tforce.\t The
\nproviso to sub-section (5) further clarifies that the amount
\nof  compensation  payable under any other law for  the\ttime
\nbeing  in  force  is  to  be  reduced  from  the  amount  of
\ncompensation  payable under sub-section (2) or under section
\n163A.\tThis  is  further crystalized in Section  141  which
\nprovides  that right to claim compensation under Section 140
\nis  in addition to any other right to claim compensation  on
\nthe  principle of fault liability and specifically  excludes
\nthe right to claim compensation under the scheme referred to
\nin  Section  163A.  Section 163B also provides that where  a
\nperson\tis entitled to claim compensation under Section\t 140
\nand  Section 163A, he can file the claim under either of the
\nsaid  sections,\t but  not under\t both.\t Similarly,  Section
\n141(1)\talso  crystalises that right to\t claim\tcompensation
\nunder  Section\t140  is in addition to the  right  to  claim
\ncompensation in respect thereof under any other provision of
\nthe  Act or any other law for the time being in force.\tSub-
\nsection\t (2) further provides that if the claimant has filed
\nan  application for compensation under Section 140 and\talso
\nin  pursuance  of  any\tright  on  the\tprinciple  of  fault
\nliability,  the claim for compensation under Section 140  is
\nto  be\tdisposed  of in the first place and as\tprovided  in
\nsub-section (3) the amount received under sub-section (2) of
\nSection\t 140 is to be adjusted while paying the compensation
\non  the principle of fault liability.  On the basis of fault
\nliability  if additional amount is required to be paid\tthen
\nthe  claimant  is entitled to get the same but there  is  no
\nprovision  for\trefund of the amount received under  Section
\n140(2),\t even  if  the\tClaims\t Tribunal  arrives  at\t the
\nconclusion  that  the claimant was not entitled to  get\t any
\ncompensation  on the principle of fault liability.  Further,
\nSection\t 144 gives overriding effect to the provisions\tmade
\nunder  Chapter\tX  by providing that the provisions  of\t the
\nchapter\t  shall\t have  effect\tnotwithstanding\t any   thing
\ncontained  in  any provision of the Act or of any other\t law
\nfor  the time being in force.  From the aforesaid  Sections,
\none  aspect  is\t abundantly  clear   that  right  to   claim
\ncompensation  on  the  basis  of  no-fault  liability  under
\nSection\t  140  is  in  addition\t to  the  right\t  to   claim
\ncompensation on the principle of fault liability or right to
\nget  compensation  under  any  other law.   Such  amount  is
\nrequired  to  be reduced from the amount payable  under\t the
\nfault  liability or compensation which may be received under
\nany other law.\tIf nothing is payable under the Act then the
\nclaimant  is  not required to refund the amount received  by
\nhim.   As  against this, there is specific departure in\t the
\nscheme envisaged for paying compensation under Section 163A.
\nSection\t  163A\tnowhere\t provides   that  this\tpayment\t  of
\ncompensation  on  no  fault  liability\t on  the  basis\t  of
\nstructured  formula  is in addition to the liability to\t pay
\ncompensation   in   accordance\twith   the  right   to\t get
\ncompensation  on the principle of fault liability and unless
\notherwise  provided for the same cause, compensation  cannot
\nbe paid again.\n<\/p>\n
Provisions for refund of compensation if compensation is
\nreceived under any other law or under the Act:\n<\/p>\n
    Further,  as the legislature has not provided for refund
\nor  adjustment of compensation received under the Act  and
\ncompensation  payable under Section 163A, it would mean that
\nScheme\tof payment of compensation under Section 163A is  in
\nalternative  to determination of compensation under  Section\n<\/p>\n
168.   As  stated  above, sections 140(5)  and\t141(3)\tmake
\nprovisions  for reduction of compensation paid under Section\n<\/p>\n
140.   Under proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 140,\t the
\namount\tof such compensation which the claimant is  entitled
\nto  receive  under any other law is required to\t be  reduced
\nfrom the amount of compensation payable under Section 140 or
\nunder  Section 163A.  Under Section 141(3), if a person gets
\nthe  compensation on principle of fault liability, then also
\nprovision  is  made for adjustment of compensation  received
\nunder  section\t140.   There  is   no  such  provision\t for
\nadjustment  of compensation received under section 163A from
\nthe compensation receivable under the Act on the principle
\nof  fault.   Similarly, section 161 provides for payment  of
\ncompensation  in  case\tof hit and  run\t motor\taccidents.
\nUnder  Section\t161(3), in cases in respect of the death  of
\nany  person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a
\nfixed  sum of Rs.25,000\/- is to be paid as compensation\t and
\nin  case of grievous hurt, the amount fixed is\tRs.12,500\/-.
\nThereafter,  under Section 162, the legislature has provided
\nfor  refund  of compensation paid under Section 161  on\t the
\nprinciple  of hit and run motor accident by providing that
\nthe  payment  of  compensation under Section  161  shall  be
\nsubject to the condition that if any compensation is awarded
\nunder  any other provision of this Act or any other  law
\nor   otherwise,\t so  much  amount  as  is  equal  to   the
\ncompensation  paid  under  Section  161 is  required  to  be
\nadjusted  or refunded to the insurer.  Under section 162(2),
\nduty  is  cast\ton the Tribunal, Court\tor  other  authority
\nawarding  such\tcompensation  to  verify as  to\t whether  in
\nrespect\t of  such death or bodily injury,  compensation\t has
\nalready\t been paid under Section 161 and to make  adjustment
\nas  required thereunder.  Result isclaimant is not entitled
\nto  have additional compensation but at the same time he can
\nproceed by filing application under Section 165 or under the
\nWorkmen\t Compensation  Act (i.e.  other law) and if he\tgets
\ncompensation under either of the said provisions, the amount
\npaid under Section 161 is to be refunded or adjusted.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t contention of the learned counsel for the claimants
\nthat  compensation payable under Section 163A is in addition
\nto  the determination of compensation on the basis of  fault
\nliability and thereafter it could be adjusted on the similar
\nlines  provided\t under Section 140 read with Section 141  or
\nSection\t 162  cannot  be   accepted.   The  Legislature\t has
\nspecifically  provided scheme of adjustment of\tcompensation
\nunder  Section 140 read with Section 141 and Section 162  if
\nthe claimants get compensation under the Act, while there is
\nno   such  provisions  under   Section\t163A.\tAddition  or
\nintroduction   of  such\t scheme\t in  provisions\t  would\t  be
\nimpermissible.\n<\/p>\n
    Use\t of  different words such asany other law,  under
\nthis  section any other law for the time being in  force,
\nprovisions  of\tthis Act or any other provision\t of  this
\nAct in different sections:\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
\nproviso\t to  sub-section (5) of Section 140 would mean\tthat
\neven  in  case\twhere compensation is determined  under\t the
\nstructured basis formula under Section 163A, the claimant is
\nentitled  to  claim  compensation  on  the  basis  of  fault
\nliability and if he gets higher amount on the basis of fault
\nliability  then from that amount compensation which is\tpaid
\nunder Section 163A is to be reduced.  At the first blush the
\nargument  of the learned counsel appears to be attractive as
\nthe  proviso  to sub-section (5) of section 140 is  to\tsome
\nextent\tambiguous  and\tvague.\tIt may mean that  amount  of
\ncompensation  given  under  any other law  may\tinclude\t the
\namount\tpayable on the basis of fault liability,  therefore,
\nin  view  of said proviso compensation amount payable  under
\nany other law is to be reduced from the compensation payable
\nunder Section 140 or 163A.  For appreciating this contention
\nand  for  ascertaining\tappropriate meaning  of\t the  phrase
\ncompensation  under  any  other law for the time  being\t in
\nforce,\tthe  proviso to sub-section (5) is required  to\t be
\nconsidered along with other provisions.\t The scheme of other
\nprovision section 167 indicates that the aforesaid phrase is
\nreferable  to  compensation  payable   under  the  Workmens
\nCompensation  Act,  1923  or any other law which may  be  in
\nforce  but  not to the determination of compensation  under
\nthe  Act,  and would not include the compensation which\t is
\ndetermined  under the provision of the Act.  This  section
\n167  in terms provides that where death of, or bodily injury
\nto,  any  person gives rise to claim compensation under\t the
\nAct  and  also under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923,  such
\nperson\tcannot\tclaim  compensation  under  both  the  Acts.
\nFurther,  in  Section 140(5), the legislature has  used\t the
\nwords  under any other law for the time being in force and
\nunder  any other law.  In Section 141 (1), the legislature
\nhas  used the phrase under any other provision of this\tAct
\nor  of\tany  other  law for the time being  in\tforce.\t In
\nsub-section  (2), the legislature has specifically  provided
\nthat  a\t claim for compensation under Section 140  shall  be
\ndisposed   of  as  expeditiously  as  possible\t and   where
\ncompensation  is  also claimed in pursuance of any right  on
\nprinciple  of fault, the application under Section 140 is to
\nbe  disposed  of in first place.  Whereas, there is no\tsuch
\nreference  for\tpayment of compensation under Section  163A.
\nFurther,  in  Section 161(2), the legislature has  used\t the
\nphrase\tany  other  law for the time being  in\tforce  and
\nprovisions  of\tthis Act.  Similarly, in Section 162,  the
\nlegislature  has used the words under any other\t provisions
\nof  this  Act or any other law or otherwise.  As  against
\nthis,  in  Section  163A, legislature has  used\t the  phrase
\nnotwithstanding\t anything  contained in this Act or in\tany
\nother\tlaw  for  the  time   being  in\t force.\t  When\tthe
\nLegislature  has  taken care of using different\t phrases  in
\ndifferent  sections, normally different meaning is  required
\nto  be\tassigned  to the language used\tby  the\t Legislature
\nunless\tcontext otherwise requires.  However, in relation to
\nthe  same  subject matter, if different words  of  different
\nimport\tare  used in the same statute, there is\t presumption
\nthat  they  are not used in the same sense.  {Re:  Board  of
\nRevenue\t v.   Arthur Paul AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 35 at 38}.   In  this
\nlight,\tparticularly Section 141 which provides for right to
\nclaim  compensation under any other provision of this  Act
\nor  of any other law for the time being in force,  proviso
\nto  sub-section\t (5) of Section 140 would mean that it\tdoes
\nnot  provide  for  deduction or adjustment  of\tcompensation
\npayable\t under\tthe Act, that is, on the principle of  fault
\nliability  which  is  to be determined\tunder  Section\t168.
\nSpecific Language of Section 163A including its heading:\n<\/p>\n
    Lastly,  for interpretation and construction of  Section
\n163A,  we  would  refer to its heading\tand  language.\t The
\nheading is Special provisions as to payment of compensation
\non  structured formula basis.  At the outset, we would make
\nit clear that for interpretation of the words of Section the
\nlanguage  of  the  heading  cannot be used  to\tcontrol\t the
\noperation of the Section, but at the same time being part of
\nthe  statute  it prima-facie furnishes some clue as  to\t the
\nmeaning\t and  purpose of Section.  [Re:\t K.P.\tVarghese  v.
\nITO  [(1982)  1 SCR p.629 at 647].  In case of ambiguity  or
\ndoubt heading can be referred to as an aid in construing the
\nprovision.   This heading indicates that the legislature has
\nenvisaged  special  provision  for  paying  compensation  on
\nstructural  formula basis instead of paying the compensation
\nby long drawn litigation after establishing fault liability.
\nSection\t   also\t   begins     with    non-obstante    clause
\nnotwithstanding\t anything contained in this Act or any\tlaw
\nfor the time being in force. This would mean that it is not
\nsubject\t to any adjudication of right to claim\tcompensation
\nas  provided under the Act.  The owner of the motor  vehicle
\nor   the  authorised  insurer  would   be  liable   to\t pay
\ncompensation due to accident arising out of the use of motor
\nvehicle.   Section  163-B  further   clarifies\tthat   claim
\npetition  can  be  filed either under Section 140  or  under
\nSection 163A but not under both sections.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the claimants however submitted
\nthat  if  we compare the language used in Sections 163A\t and
\n140(1),\t it would be apparent that Section 140\tcontemplates
\npayment\t of  compensation by the owner of the  vehicle.\t  As
\nagainst\t  this,\t Section  163A\t contemplates\tpayment\t  of
\ncompensation  by  the  owner of the  vehicle  or  authorised
\ninsurer.   It  is  submitted that even if we read  the\tsaid
\nphrase as owner of the motor vehicle of authorised insurer
\nas owner of the motor vehicle or authorised insurer on the
\nassumption  that of is wrongly used, then also it is their
\ncontention that Section 163A envisages payment either by the
\nauthorised insurer or by the owner of the motor vehicle.  It
\nhas  wider  implication and, therefore, compensation  beyond
\nmaximum\t of  Rs.50000\/- is provided in Second  Schedule\t and
\nhence  the  payment  under  Section   163A  should  not\t  be
\nconsidered  as alternative to payment of compensation  under
\nthe  fault liability.  In our view, it is true that  Section
\n140  talks  of payment of compensation by the owner  of\t the
\nvehicle, while Section 163A after reading of as or would
\nmean  that  owner of the vehicle or the\t authorised  insurer
\nwould be liable to pay compensation under Section 163A.\t But
\nthat  would not make any difference because determination of
\ncompensation  under  Section  163A is final and\t not  as  an
\ninterim\t measure.   As\tstated above,  the  legislature\t has
\ndeliberately  not  provided  that it is in addition  to\t the
\ncompensation  payable  on the principle of fault  liability.
\nThere is no provision for adjusting the compensation payable
\nunder Section 163A with the other payment on fault liability
\nunder  the  Act.   In  the result,  the\t contention  of\t the
\nclaimants  that right to get compensation under Section 163A
\nis additional to claim compensation on no fault liability is
\nrejected  for  the  following reasons:\t– (1)  There  is  no
\nspecific  provision  in\t the  Act to the  effect  that\tsuch
\ncompensation  is  in  addition to the  compensation  payable
\nunder  the Act.\t Wherever the Legislature wanted to  provide
\nadditional  compensation, it has done so.  [Sections 140 and
\n141]<\/p>\n
    (2)\t In  case  where compensation is paid  on  no  fault
\nliability under sections 140 and 161 in case of hit and run
\nmotor accidents, the Legislature has provided adjustment or
\nrefund\tof the said compensation in case where\tcompensation
\nis  determined\tand payable under the award on the basis  of
\nfault  liability under section 168 of the Act.\tThere is  no
\nsuch procedure for refund or adjustment of compensation paid
\nwhere the compensation is paid under Section 163A.\n<\/p>\n
    (3) The words under any other law for the time being in
\nforce would certainly have different meaning from the words
\nunder this Act or under any other provision of this Act<\/p>\n
    (4)\t In view of the non-obstante clause notwithstanding
\nanything  contained  in this Act the provisions of  Section
\n163A  would  exclude  determination of compensation  on\t the
\nprinciple of fault liability.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t The procedure of giving compensation under  Section
\n163A  is  inconsistent\twith the  procedure  prescribed\t for
\nawarding  compensation\ton fault liability.   Under  section
\n163A  compensation  is\tawarded without proof of  any  fault
\nwhile  for  getting  compensation  on  the  basis  of  fault
\nliability  claimant  is\t required  to  prove  wrongful\tact,
\nneglect\t or default of the owner of the vehicle or  vehicles
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
    (6)\t Award\tof  compensation under section\t163A  is  on
\npredetermined  formula\tfor payment of compensation to\troad
\naccident  victims  and\tthat  formula  itself  is  based  on
\ncriteria  similar  to  determining  the\t compensation  under
\nsection 168.  The object was to avoid delay in determination
\nof compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    In the result, the question involved in these matters is
\nanswered  accordingly.\t The appeals filed by the  Insurance
\nCompanies  are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders
\nare  quashed and set aside.  However, there will be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  parting with the judgment, we would like to draw
\nthe  attention\tof the Central Government for  revision\t and
\nappropriate  correction\t of  the   Second  Schedule,   which
\nprovides  for payment of compensation on structured  formula
\nbasis, by exercise of its power under Section 163A(3).\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned  counsel for the parties submitted that  in
\nU.P.  State Road Transport Corporation and others v.  Trilok
\nChandra and others<\/a> [(1996) 4 SCC 362 Para 18] this Court has
\npointed out errors in the Second Schedule thus:\t We must at
\nonce  point out that the calculation of compensation and the
\namount\tworked\tout  in the Schedule  suffers  from  several
\ndefects.  For example, in Item 1 for a victim aged 15 years,
\nthe  multiplier is shown to be Rs.3000.\t The total should be
\n3000x  15=45,000  but the same is worked out  at  Rs.60,000.
\nSimilarly,  in the second item the multiplier is 16 and\t the
\nannual\tincome\tis  Rs\t9000;  the total  should  have\tbeen
\nRs.1,44,000  but  is  shown to be Rs.1,71,000.\t To  put  it
\nbriefly,  the  table abounds in such mistakes.\tNeither\t the
\ntribunals  nor the courts can go by the ready reckoner.\t  It
\ncan  only  be  used as a guide.\t Besides, the  selection  of
\nmultiplier  cannot  in all cases be solely dependant on\t the
\nage  of\t the  deceased.\t  For example, if  the\tdeceased,  a
\nbachelor,  dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are\t his
\nparents,  age  of the parents would also be relevant in\t the
\nchoice of the multiplier.  But these mistakes are limited to
\nactual\tcalculations only and not in respect of other items.
\nWhat  we propose to emphasize is that the multiplier  cannot
\nexceed\t18 years purchase factor.  This is the\timprovement
\nover  the  earlier  position that ordinarily it\t should\t not
\nexceed\t16.   We thought it necessary to state\tthe  correct
\nlegal  position\t as  courts and tribunals are  using  higher
\nmultiplier  as\tin the present case where the Tribunal\tused
\nthe  multiplier\t of  24 which the High Court raised  to\t 34,
\nthereby\t showing lack of awareness of the background of\t the
\nmultiplier  system  in Davies v.  Powell Duffryn  Associated
\nCollieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601 :\t (1942) 1 All ER 657].\n<\/p>\n
    In\taddition, the learned counsel also pointed out\tthat
\nin  case  of  fatal  accident and  disability  in  non-fatal
\naccident,  it has been provided that notional income for the
\nclaimant  who  had  no\tincome prior to\t accident  shall  be
\nRs.15000\/-  per annum and still however the Second  Schedule
\nprovides   table  of  income   ranging\tfrom  Rs.3000\/-\t  to
\nRs.40000\/-  and\t the  brake-up\talso does  not\tprovide\t any
\ncalculation  for Rs.15000\/-, as the columns in the  Schedule
\ninter  alia  provide  for compensation for a  person  having
\nincome\t of  Rs.12000\/-,  and\tthereafter  straightway\t  at
\nRs.18000\/-.  The learned counsel also submitted that despite
\nthe  specific provision in Section 163A(3) that the  Central
\nGovernment  may,  keeping  in view the cost  of\t living,  by
\nnotification in Official Gazette from time to time amend the
\nSchedule,  nothing has been done so far.  Further, by  order
\ndated\t30.8.2000,  this  Court\t  again\t noticed  number  of
\nanomalies  in the Second Schedule and, therefore, thought it
\nfit  to\t have assistance of either the Attorney\t General  of
\nIndia  or  the Solicitor General of India.  When the  matter
\nwas  called out on 15.12.2000, Mr.  Altaf Ahmad, ASG, stated
\nbefore\tthe  Court  that the order passed by this  Court  on
\n30.8.2000  has\talready\t engaged serious  attention  of\t the
\nMinistry  of Surface Transport Department and the Government
\nwas considering the matter for bringing necessary correction
\nin   the  Second  Schedule  of\t the  Motor  Vehicles\tAct.
\nThereafter,  we\t again sought assistance of  the  Additional
\nSolicitor  General on the interpretation of Section 163A and
\nalso  to verify whether there are corrections in the  Second
\nSchedule.   Learned Additional Solicitor General stated that
\namendment might take some time.\t In this view of the matter,
\nwe  think it would be appropriate if the Central  Government
\ntakes  necessary  action as early as possible under  Section
\n163A(3).\n<\/p>\n
    Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 Author: Shah Bench: M.B. Shah, D.P. Mohapatra 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) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":8300,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\",\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001"},"wordCount":8300,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001","name":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T13:51:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-hansrajbhai-v-kodala-ors-on-4-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}