United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Iqubal Ahemad Shaikh And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 737 Bom

JUDGMENT

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. The appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) has challenged the grant of interim award of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident took place on 12.11.1994. At that time as per the then existing provision, the 'no fault liability' amount was Rs. 25,000 as contemplated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. By amendment dated 14.11.1994, the said amount has been replaced by Rs. 50,000.

2. The deceased succumbed to the said injury on 18.12.1994. Therefore, the contention that learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded Rs. 50,000 as the entitlement of interim award in such circumstances should have been the date of accident and not the date of death. Learned Judge, after considering the rival contentions as raised by the parties, came to a conclusion that for the original claimants entitlement of any award or compensation comes after the death and not before that. Even otherwise, considering the scheme and the provisions of the Act and specially the principle of 'no fault liability' as contemplated under the said provision, there was no occasion for the claimants to make such application being heirs of the deceased. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the claimants were entitled to move this application for interim award only after the death of the deceased and, therefore, as it was moved after the death the Tribunal has granted the interim award based on the existing provision after 14.11.1994. There is no reason to interfere with the said interim award.

3. Insofar as the issue about the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, the issue is settled and such appeal is maintainable.

4. With regard to the Division Bench judgment as cited by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in Prakash Chandumal Khatri v. Suresh Pahilajrai Makhija , that was a case of accident and death on the spot. Therefore, on the date of accident itself the provision as available on the date of accident and death, was relevant. Therefore, the facts and circumstances are totally distinct and distinguishable. Same is the case in the case of Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. 1982 ACJ 191 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed that for determining the extent of liability for insurance company the material date is the date of accrual of cause of action when its liability arises, i.e., the date of accident. In that case also, on the date of accident itself, the appellant's husband was dead. Therefore, the cause of action arose on the date of the accident itself for claiming such compensation for the heirs of the deceased. In the present case, the accident did occur prior to the amendment but the deceased succumbed to the injury after the amendment, i.e., 14.11.1994. In this case also the facts and circumstances are distinct and distinguishable.

5. The facet of adjusting the interim amount of Rs. 50,000 is always open to the Tribunal to consider. It be adjusted if not considered already.

6. Learned Counsel for appellant states that at the time of registering this appeal, the appellant has deposited Rs. 25,000. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal and there is no opposition, the appellant is entitled to refund of this amount deposited in this Court.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with above observations. No costs.

In the result, C.A. No. 5795 of 1997 is also dismissed in view of the dismissal of first appeal. The stay also stands vacated.