Parwati Devi & Others vs Paramjeet Singh & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This is an appeal arising out of the award dated 25.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in MACT Case No.142 of 2013, whereby a compensation of Rs. 5,27,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Only) has been awarded to the claimants.

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.05.2013 at about 03:35 p.m. one Lalji Prasad aged about 32 years was going on his motorcycle to his house from "Mahtosh". On this motorcycle were sitting the mother of Lalji Prasad namely Gulabo Devi aged about 54 years and two girl children namely Roshni and Kiran, aged about 12 years and 9 years respectively. It is alleged that when they reached near Premnagar Puliya, Gadarpur at about 03:35 pm, a truck bearing registration no. JK 02 C -1752 dashed the motorcycle from the back and crushed it, as a result of which, all the four persons who were riding on the motorcycle sustained injuries and ultimately all of them passed away. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the claimants and a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) was claimed on account of death of Lalji Prasad.

The claim was admittedly moved under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:-

"163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs of or the victim, as the case may be.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."

Written statements were filed by the insurance company, the driver as well as the owner of the ill fated truck.

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether on 14.05.2013 at about 3:30 p.m. when Lalji Prasad, the husband of claimant no. 1 was coming towards his house on his motorcycle, the motorcycle had an accident in Gadarpur, with a truck bearing registration no. JK -02C-1752, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver?

Whether the accident in question occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased? If yes, it's effect?

Whether the owner of the motorcycle no. UA-03-0970 involved in the alleged accident and his insurance company are necessary parties? If yes, it's effect?

Whether on the date and time of accident in question, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and the owner of the vehicle was not having valid insurance and papers? If yes, then its effect?

Whether the claimants are entitled to any relief, if yes then from which of the parties and to what extent?"

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding issue nos. 1 & 2 came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and due to the said accident Lalji Prasad had sustained injuries which resulted in his death.

While deciding issue no. 3, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the owner of the motorcycle and the insurance company are not the necessary parties.

So far as issue no. 4 is concerned, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date and time of the accident and the owner of the vehicle was having valid R.T.O. Papers and valid insurance.

As far as the compensation amount is concerned, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased Lalji Prasad as 32 years, fixed his annual notional income as Rs.36,000/-(Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Only). The learned tribunal thereafter deducted one-fourth from the said amount towards personal expenses and for the purposes of compensation calculated the annual notional income as Rs.27,000/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Only). The learned Tribunal thereafter applied a multiplier of 16 and calculated the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/-(Rupees Four Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Only). Apart from this, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) towards loss of love and affection to the wife/claimant no. 1 and Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only ) i.e. Rs. 10,000/- each to the minor children for loss of love and affection. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,27,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Only) as compensation. Aggrieved by the amount of the compensation, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. There is no appeal of the Insurance Company.

As far as deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses is concerned, this has been rightly done by the learned Tribunal. To this extent, there is no anomaly in the award of the learned tribunal. However, the multiplier of 16 has wrongly been applied, inasmuch as per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was applicable at the relevant time, for a victim of the age above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, a multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Therefore on application of multiplier of 17 on the notional annual income of deceased Lalji Prasad i.e. Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Only), the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,59,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Only). This Court also finds that amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as funeral expenses has wrongly been fixed, and in the considered view of this Court, this should have been Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Further, the loss of consortium granted to the wife/claimant no. 1 to the tune of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) is also liable to be increased to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). So far as compensation towards loss of love and affection to the children which has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) i.e. Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to each child is also on the lower side, which is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) i.e. Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to each child.

In view of the above determination, the total amount of compensation which the claimants are liable to get comes to Rs.7,09,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Nine Thousand Only), on which the claimants shall be entitled to get an interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of judgment i.e. 27.05.2015.

The appeal is allowed. Let the learned Tribunal calculate the entire amount of compensation as per the above determination after adjusting the amount already given to the claimants, which shall be deposited by the insurance company within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. After the amount of compensation is deposited by the insurance company, let the amount be released in favour of the claimants forthwith.