The Kerala High Court dismissed appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that since no evidence was produced to establish higher income beyond the statutory limit of Rs.40,000, the structured formula application was correct.
M.A.C.A Nos.677/2012 and 885/2012 are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940
MACA.No. 677 of 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1477/2007 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 2911-2011
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDRAN PILLAI S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, VIPIN BHAVANAM, (KOCHUKALEEKKAL), MEMANA WARD, OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
W/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, VIPIN BHAVANAM (KOCHUKALEEKKAL), MEMANA WARD, OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOLLAM-691001 REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.885/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940
MACA.No. 885 of 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1477/2007 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 29-11-2011
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM, METRO PALACE, ERNAKULAM NORTH,KOCH-18.
BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1,2 ADN 4 TO 7 IN THE OP:
1 CHANDRAN PILLAI
S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, VIPIN BHAVANAM, (KOCHUKALEEKKAL) MEMANA WARD, OCHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 690 526.
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
3
S/O.MATHAI CHACKO, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, AMICHAKIRY P.O, THIRUVALLA 689 571.
8 ISSAC MATHEW MANAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA P.O., PIN-689 104.
9 C.P.THOMAS S/O.JOSEPH, MUSHARUPARAMBIL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLIKKARA P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA 688 013. [DELETED][RESPONDENTS 5 AND 9 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN IA 720/16 IN MACA NO.885/2012.]
BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.677/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
4
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.1477/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. On 26.08.2006 at 1.20 pm, the deceased met with an accident while riding a motor cycle and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,08,500/-. Being aggrieved by that, claimants preferred M.A.C.A No.677/2012 and the insurer preferred M.A.C.A No.885/2012.
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
5
Exts.A1 to A5. Respondents evidence consist of documentary evidence of Ext.B1.
as follows:
“S.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 of 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 or the victim, as the case may be.
(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.”
6
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
Act. Sec.163-A is provided for the person having fixed income with an instant relief with low income upto Rs.40,000/- per annum. Persons with high income may also be equally needy if they lose the bread-winner on calculating Rs.40,000/- per annum. Application under Sec.163-A is not tenable if made by a person whose income exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum. But, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income to Rs.40,000/- in order to present his claim under Sec. 163-A, the same can be permitted. In calculating the amount of compensation, the Court must lean to adopt the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule.
terms it is found that discretion vested in assessment has to be on the basis of injury sustained to the victim and also on the nature of evidence in that case. In injury cases the damages are to be assessed separately as pecuniary and special damages. The object is to compensate injured so far as money can compensate and for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account. The compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine, but award must reflect that
7
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
different circumstances have been taken into consideration. The assessment of compensation in permanent disability case would differ from person to person according to the nature of injury. Vast discretion is vested with the court for assessment of just compensation in injury cases. There can be no uniform standard and yardstick provided for assessing such compensation. The scope for awarding general damages and special damages are too wide for articulation. It is settled law that compensation for injury claims would be higher than that in death cases. The reason is that the injured has to suffer disability for the remaining period of his life.
6. Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Sunil Kumar [2017 (4) KLT 1093 (SC)] held as follows:
“ 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under S.163A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by S.163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by S.140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of S.163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very
8
MACA.Nos. 677 & 885 of 2012
legislative object behind introduction of S.163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand S.163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under S.163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under S.166 of the Act which would not only be selfcontradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention. ”
Kumar' case (supra) for awarding compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal took Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income and awarded just amount as compensation. No documents were produced in the lower court to increase the income. If that be the position, there is no merit in these appeals.
In the circumstance, M.A.C.A Nos.677/2012 and 885/2012 are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- P.D.RAJAN JUDGE
bng/28.11.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act given the income evidence.
Whether the insurer was entitled to raise a defence of contributory negligence under Section 163-A as interpreted in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil KumarRelied on¶6
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [2017 (4) KLT 1093 (SC)]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
CHANDRAN PILLAI
VALSALA
VINAYAK
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
P.D.RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
