The insurer appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the son, daughter, and minor daughter of a deceased driver killed in an accident. The court affirmed the Tribunal's award, holding it not excessive and within the Act's limits.
The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award of Rs.3,85,000/- holds good.
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.
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.4535 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
The 2nd respondent – insurer preferred the appeal aggrieved by the award in O.P. No.1734 of 2006 filed by the respondents 1 to 3, who are the son, major daughter, minor daughter of the deceased by name, I. Ramulamma aged about 46 years met with death in the accident, dated 06.04.2006, due to alleged rash and negligent driving of rider of the Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP 29 M 9038 of claim petition 1st respondent – insured with the 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, out of the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIII Additional Chief Judge, (F.T.C.) City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) awarded Rs.3,85,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. In the claim petition quoting both the Sections 166 an 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal gravely adopted multiplier 15 instead of 12.75, also went wrong in considering claim under Section 166 of the Act without even so specifying even the claim petition is not maintainable when quoted both the provisions under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act, amounts awarded under the loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are also beyond the limit provided under Schedule II Read with Section 163-A of the Act and the earnings of the deceased taken are also exorbitant. Hence, the insurer seeks to reduce the compensation.
02. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – insurer and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 – claimants.
03. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same. Whereas it is the contention of the counsel for the claimants – respondents 1 to 3 to the appeal that the award of the Tribunal holds good, but for no crossobjections the compensation is utterly low. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
04. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
05. Perused the material on record. Now the points that arise for consideration are, i. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and claim petition is not maintainable and with what observation?
ii. To what result?
Point No. i:
06. There is no dispute on the manner of the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP 29 M 9038 and the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 – policy.
07. Now coming to maintainability of the claim petition is concerned, no doubt Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act both are final claims and final claim must be made under any one of the provision, but not both. However, even it is the option so available to the claimants before commencement of trial. The Tribunal may take under any of these two provisions. In view of the expression of this Court in Bupati Prameela v.
[1] Superintendent of Police, Vizianagara m held that the Court cannot give technical importance to the provision, but for to consider, which of the two provisions beneficial to the claimants and thereby though not in specific words, the claim can be taken under Section 166 of the Act, it can be so taken as the earnings of the deceased claimed Rs.4,000/- per month, which is above Rs.40,000/- limit provided under the Schedule II of the Act, it is also the bar to maintain the claim under Section 163 of the Act. Thus, the claim can be taken under Section 166 of the Act.
08. Now coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, once that is the case, so far as the age of the deceased 46 or 40 is concerned, Ex.A.3 – civil supplies card which shows the age of the deceased 31 years as on 02.02.1995 and the accident was dated 06.07.2006 nearly 11 years after the ration card issued therefrom the age of the deceased is between 41 to 45 years. For the persons aged 41 to 45, as per the [2] expression of the expression of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation the multiplier 14 is applicable. The earnings of the deceased, as per the expression of the Apex Court in Lata
[3] Wadwa v. State of Biha r in the absence of presence of proof of earnings, Rs.3,000/- can be taken and the accident was in July, 2006 nearly five years after the expression of the Apex Court in Lata Wadwa referred supra, hence, the multiplier 14 can be taken, therefrom 1/3rd of the earnings can be deducted towards personal earnings of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.2,333/-. In total, the loss of earnings comes to 3,91,944/(Rs.2,333/- x 12 x 14). Besides the loss of earnings, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards care and guidance to the 3rd claimant in view of the expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir [4] Singh . Thereby overall taken into consideration of these facts, what the Tribunal awarded no way requires interference. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
Point No.ii:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal in O.P. No.1734 of 2006 holds good. No Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:08-12-2014 bv [1] 2010(4) ALD 531 DB [2] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [3] 2001 ACJ 1725 [4] (2013) 9 SCC 54
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the claim petition is not maintainable?
Whether the multiplier and earnings calculation were proper under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bupati Prameela v. Superintendent of Police, VizianagaraReferred¶12
Bupati Prameela v. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagara
2010(4) ALD 531 DBReferred¶12
2010(4) ALD 531 DB
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationRelied on¶14
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
(2009) 6 SCC 121Relied on¶14
(2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Lata Wadwa v. State of BiharRelied on¶14
Lata Wadwa v. State of Bihar
2001 ACJ 1725Relied on¶14
2001 ACJ 1725
Rajesh v. Rajbir SinghRelied on¶14
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh
(2013) 9 SCC 54Relied on¶14
(2013) 9 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
2nd respondent – insurer
Respondents 1 to 3
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
