Chandraprakash Sharma And Ors vs Ashok Brothers And Ors

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

Claimants are the parents of the deceased. The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of the

death of three youths, which was sought to be compensated by filing claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It is submitted on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, the learned counsel whose name is shown in the cause-list as appearing for the 2 nd Respondent-

Bharti A.X.A. General Insurance Company Limited that he has already relinquished the Vakalat and the matter has been informed to the Company. It

is simultaneously added that, as per the intimation given to him, the Insurance Company has made alternate arrangements; but virtually there is nobody

to represent the Insurer. I.A. No.02 of 2020 has been filed for removing the name of the learned counsel for the 2 nd Respondent from the cause- list

and the records.

Heard Shri Rakesh Thakur, the learned counsel for the Appellants and Shri T.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th

Respondent.

The factual matrix reveals that on 26.11.2010, the deceased whose case is projected in MAC No.758 of 2013 was driving the Car bearing

registration No.CG-07/LT/1431 with his friends, who are the deceased involved in other two appeals. When they reached the place of occurrence at

National Highway No.6 at about 8.00 pm, the Car hit against a Truck parked on the Highway. It is stated that visibility was poor because of fog. Due

to the seriousness of the impact, fatal injuries were caused, ultimately, leading to the death of the driver of the Car and the two other persons. This led

to separate claim applications before the Claims Tribunal, preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was contended before the Claims Tribunal

that the deceased in MAC No.758 of 2013, who was driving the Car at the relevant time, was engaged as a 'Broker' with a monthly income of

Rs.3,300/-. In the other two cases, the contention was that the deceased were engaged as 'Shopkeeper' with a monthly income of Rs.3,200/-.

Since no negligence was liable to be considered in a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to

award compensation in terms thereof, reckoning the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month in all three cases. Applying the

multiplier of '10', the loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.1.8 Lacs. In fact, the Claims Tribunal had deducted 50% from the annual income towards

the 'personal expenses', as all the deceased were bachelors. The Claims Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to the claimants in each of the

three cases, towards loss of love and affection and another sum of Rs.2,000/- each, towards funeral expenses, thus, fixing the total compensation of

Rs.1,92,000/-. This was directed to be satisfied by the Insurer of the offending vehicle with the interest as specified in the award.

The learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has gone totally wrong in fixing the 'multiplicand' and the 'multiplier'.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the pleadings and the materials on record.

It is settled law, that a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where negligence does not require to be pleaded or proved, can

be preferred only in respect of a particular class of people whose annual income is less than Rs.40,000/-. In all other cases, where the annual income

is above than Rs.40,000/-, it has to be considered in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In MAC No.758 of 2013, the monthly income was claimed as Rs.3,300/-; whereas in other two cases, it was claimed as Rs.3,200/-. The deceased

were aged 23 years in MAC No.758 of 2013 and MAC No.760 of 2013; whereas in the other case i.e. MAC No.759 of 2013, the deceased was only

19 years of age, as put- forth by the claimants.

After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal fixed Rs.3,000/- as the reckonable notional monthly income of the

deceased, which is quite in order. However, coming to the appropriate multiplier, the Claims Tribunal has reckoned only '10'.

It is settled law by virtue of ruling rendered by Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, as

affirmed by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 68,0 that the

multiplier has to be fixed with reference to the age of the deceased. In a claim under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where

negligence does not require to be pleaded or proved, the compensation can be awarded only in a structured manner i.e. as envisaged in the 2nd

Schedule.

Right from U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 36,2 the Apex Court had been alerting the

Law makers that the 2 nd Schedule was full of mistakes and has held that it could be taken only as a 'guideline'. In the case of a person aged between

15 and 20 years, the appropriate multiplier is 16, whereas in case of a person aged between 20 and 25 years, it is '17'. Similarly, by virtue of the nature

of the claim under Section 163-A and the 'Note' given under the head 'Fatal Accidents' in the II Schedule, the amount of compensation has to be

reduced by '1/3 rd' attributable to the personal expenses of the victim.

In the instant case, stating that the deceased was a bachelor, the Claims Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision reported in 2011 (3) MPHT 91

CG (Smt. Samarin Bai and Others v. Mangal Singh and Others), has deducted 50% towards the personal expenses. This according to us, is not

correct, as the 2nd Schedule clearly says that the amount of compensation has to be reduced by '1/3 rd ' and never beyond. This is more so, since the

2 nd Schedule does not envisage consideration of any future prospects or addition of the income and also without any need or necessity to plead /

prove negligence.

On re-working the compensation in respect of the fatal accident, in MAC No.760 of 2013, it comes to 3,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-.

Towards the General damages, Rs.2,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Since the deceased was a

bachelor, no loss of consortium is payable, which can be paid only to the beneficiary spouse. Thus, the total compensation payable comes to

Rs.4,12,500/-. Since the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,92,000/-, the balance payable comes to Rs. 2,20,500/- (Two lac twenty thousand and five

hundred only). Exactly same is the calculation in respect of MAC No.758 of 2013 as well and hence, the said Appellants are also entitled to get a

balance of Rs.2,20,500/- (Two lac twenty thousand and five hundred only).

Coming to MAC No.759 of 2013, the deceased was admittedly aged about 19 years. Since the appropriate multiplier in respect of a person aged

between 15 and 20 years is 16, the calculation of the compensation is as follows : 3,000 x 12 x 2/3 x 16 = Rs.3,84,000/-. Further amounts of Rs.2,000/-

towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate are also awarded towards General damages. Thus, the total compensation comes to

Rs.3,88,500/-. After giving credit to the sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the balance payable comes to Rs.1,96,500/-

(One lac ninety six thousand and five hundred only)

Since the policy in respect of the offending vehicle is admitted and the Award passed by the Tribunal fixing liability on the Insurance Company

concerned has not been challenged, the above amount shall be satisfied by the said Insurer with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim

application, till satisfaction. The amount as above shall be worked out and deposited before the Claims Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the three appeals stand allowed to the said extent.