INDRA DEVI & ORS.versusBAGADA RAM & ANR.

                  [2010] 10 S.C.R. 347


                     INDRA DEVI & ORS.                             A
                             v.
                   BAGADA RAM & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 1508 of 2004)
                     AUGUST 18, 2010
                                                                   B
          [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

     ss. 140 and 166 - 'No fault compensation' - Tribunal          c
while rejecting the claim petition filed u/s 166 against the
ensured and ensurer for death of the victim, on the ground
that the accident occurred due to careless and negligent
driving of deceased himself, directing refund of no fault
compensation along with interest - High Court affirming the        0
order - HELD: The impugned direction is clearly erroneous
and unsustainable in law - The Tribunal has completely failed
to realise the true nature and character of the compensation
in terms of s. 140 of the Act - The marginal heading to s. 140
describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault' - As the      E
expression 'no fault' suggests, the compensation uls 140 is
regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person
in respect of whose death the claim is made - In view of the
judgment in Eshwarappa's case*, the Tribunal was patently in
error, in directing for refund to the insurance company of
 amount of 'no fault compensation' already paid to the             F
 claimants,- High Court was equally in error in missing out this
grave mistake in the judgment and order passed by the
 Tribunal and not setting it aside - Order of Tribunal insofar
as it permits the insurance company to recover the amount
of interim compensation along with interest from the claimants     G
set aside - Interpretation of Statutes.

    Interpretation of Statutes:

                             347                                   H
    348       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         Aid to construction - Marginal heading - Relevancy of

        *Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. decided by
    Supreme Court on 18.10.2010 - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference:
B
          CA No. 7049 of 2002     relied on                para 6
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1508 of 2004.

C       From the Judgment & Order dated 20.08.2002 of the High
    Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.
    323 of 2002.

        Aishwarya Bhati (Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati) for the
D   Appellants.

          H.K. Puri, K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E       AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This is the claimant's appeal from a
    motor accident claim case.

         2. On March 31, 1999, one Ramniwas while going on a
    motorcycle dashed against the rear side of a truck that was
    headed in the same direction as the motorcycle. Ramniwas
F   died in the accident. His heirs and legal representatives, the
    appellants before this Court, moved the MACT, Sojat, Branch
    Jaitaran, District Pali in MACT Case No.59 of 1999 against
    the owner of the truck and its insurer, the New India Assurance
    Company Ltd. for compensation in terms of section 166 of the
G   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In course of the proceedings, the
    appellants claimed no fault compensation under section 140
    of the Motor Vehicles Act which was granted to them by the
    Tribunal and the compensation amount was duly paid by the
    insurance company. In the main proceeding, however, the
H   Tribunal came to find and hold that insofar as the accident is
   INDRA DEVI & ORS. v. BAGADA RAM & ANR.                   349
               [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
concerned there was no lapse on the part of the driver of th~       A
truck nor was it due to any mechanical fault in the truck. The
accident was caused due to the careless and negligent driving
of the deceased himself. On that finding, the Tribunal naturally
rejected the claim of compensation on the principle of fault. But
it did not stop there and went on to hold that the insurance        B
company was entitled to the refund of the amount of no fault
compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. In the operative
portion of the judgment, the tribunal ordered as follows:

     "According to the above analysis, this claim is dismissed. C
     An amount of Rs.50,000/- has been given to the applicants
     by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as an interim relief
     and The India Assurance Co. Ltd. will be entitled to have
     it back with 9% interest p.a."

     3. The claimants took the matter to the High Court in          D
appeal (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.323 of 2002). The High
Court dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated
August 20, 2002. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's
finding that the deceased alone was responsible for the
accident and hence, the claimants were not entitled to any          E
compensation. Unfortunately, the High Court did not address
the issue of no fault compensation and overlooked the direction
of the Tribunal for refund of the amount of interim compensation
alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.

     4. The claimants are now before this Court aggrieved by        F
the direction to refund the amount of interim compensation to
the insurance company alongwith interest.

     5. The impugned direction is clearly erroneous and
unsustamable in law. The Tribunpl has completely failed to G
realize the true nature and character of the compensation in
terms of section 140 of the Act. The marginal heading to section
140 describes it as based 'on the principle of no fault'. As the
expression 'no fault' suggests the compensation under section
140 is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the H
    350      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   person in respect of whose death the claim is made.

         6. We have examined the nature of the 'no fault
    compensation' payable under section 140 of the Act in
    Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. vs. C. S.
    Gurushanthappa and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002), the
B
    judgment in which is pronounced today. We, therefore, do not
    wish to elaborate the point further. Suffice to say that in view of
    our judgment in Civil Appeal No.7049 of 2002, the Tribunal was
    patently in error, in directing for the refund of the amount of 'no
    fault compensation' already paid to the claimants, to the
c   insurance company. The High Court was equally in error in
    missing out this grave mistake in the judgment and order
    passed by the Tribunal and not setting it right.

        7. The present (!ppeal must, therefore, be allowed. The
D   order of the Tribunal insofar as it permits the insurance
    company (respondent no.2) to recover the amount of interim
    compensation alongwith the interest from the claimants/
    appellants is set aside.

         8. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as
E
    to costs.

    R.P.                                             Appeal allowed.