Vijay Rani and Others vs Bahadur Singh and Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—The claimants have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (in short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 3.5.2008 on account of death of Gaurav Gupta.

On 29.11.2006, Sachin accompanied by Bharat Bhushan, Gaurav Gupta and Sandeep were returning after attending a party at Drive-in 22 situated at Ambala-Chandigarh Highway in car No. HR- 01N-881 driven by Sachin. At about 11.30 PM near Toll Tax Barrier, Sachin applied brakes of the car suddenly but he could not control the car and hit the truck behind its back. As a result thereof, Sachin and Gaurav died at the spot, while Bharat Bhushan and Sandeep succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Accordingly, four claim petitions were filed. The present appeal has arisen out of MACT Case No. 183 of 2006, filed by the parents of Gaurav Gupta deceased. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 besides raising various preliminary objections pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. Respondent No. 2- Insurance Company in its written statement raised various preliminary objections including the maintainability of the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Denying the involvement of the car in the accident and their liability to pay compensation, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the accident had taken place due to involvement of car No. HR-01N-8381 causing deaths of Sachin, Bharat Bhushan, Sandeep and Gaurav Gupta, as alleged? OPP

ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

iii) Whether insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement? OPR- 3.

iv) Relief.

The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants held that the accident occurred on account of involvement of Car No. HR-01N-8381, resulting into deaths of Sachin, Bharat Bhushan, Sandeep and Gaurav Gupta. Under issues No. 2 and 3, the claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,500/- including Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral expenses. Further, respondent No. 1 being owner of the car was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 3.5.2008 awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,500/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement by the claimants.

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act and the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month, thus, making an annual income at Rs. 36,000/-. He referred to Second Schedule to the Act and urged that it has been provided thereunder that deduction of 1/3rd be made for self expenses and after that deduction, dependency of the claimants would come to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. It was pointed out that suitable multiplier as per Second Schedule was 17 and, therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000/-. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral charges and Rs. 2500/- on account of loss of estate was also claimed. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,12,500/- has been claimed as compensation by the claimants. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in FAO No. 5743 of 2011 (Chander Rani v. Surinder Singh) decided on 27.9.2012 and FAO No. 2448 of 2009 (Smt. Ranjiv Kaur v. Raghbir Singh and others) decided on 11.5.2012, to contend that in the cases where the deceased was bachelor and the claimants were parents even then the claimants were entitled to the same amount. According to the learned counsel, Policy Ex.RA was a package policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment to the claimants.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company besides supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Insurance Company did not cover the driver and owner of the vehicle. Equally, gratuitous passengers were also not covered thereunder. The liability of the Insurance Company was sought to be disowned on the aforesaid ground.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

It would be expedient to reproduce Section 163A of the Act which reads thus:-

"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 authorized 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. 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."

According to the aforesaid provision, the method of determination of compensation has been provided in Second Schedule to the Act.

This Court in Smt. Ranjiv Kaur and Chander Rani''s cases (supra), considering the case of the claimants who were parents of the deceased held that they are entitled to the amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 163A of the Act. Further, this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chand Chhabra and Others, , delving into the issue of a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle who was covered under a comprehensive package policy had held that the liability of insurance company for a passenger on a private vehicle was fully covered thereunder. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased was 22 years of age and his income was accepted to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After allowing cut of 1/3rd as provided in the Second Schedule for self and applying the multiplier of 17 as specified therein, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 24000/- x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/-. Adding Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate of the deceased, the claimants are entitled to total of Rs. 4,12,500/-.

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 4,12,500/-.from Rs. 1,60,500/- The interest and other terms would be as per the award dated 3.5.2008 passed by the Tribunal.