Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 290 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parsino Devi & Ors

2005-10-25

NIRMAL SINGH

body2005
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called as the Act) against the award dated 12-12-2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in a claim petition titled Parsina Devi and others versus Dalip Kumar and others which was filed by the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased-Vijay Kumar for claiming compensation under sections 140/166 of the Act, who had died in a vehicular accident on 6.10.2001 near Pindi Sarochan, R.S. Pura with Bus bearing registration No.JK02D 9221 which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and in the process it hit the Scooter of the deceased as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the next day. 2. The Tribunal after framing issues and recording the evidence of the parties awarded Rs. 5,88,680/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. 3. The short question which has been raised in this appeal in whether the ˜General Damages™ can be awarded when the compensation has been assessed by multiplier method. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Company submitted that the compensation in this case has been assessed by applying the multiplier method, but the learned Tribunal has erroneously also awarded compensation on account of loss of ˜consortium™, and loss of ˜Estate™. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Kalgotra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submitted that there is no bar for awarding compensation under the heads of loss of ˜consortium™ as well as loss to the ˜Estate™. He submitted that even when an application is moved under section-166 of the Act, the compensation can be assessed as per the Second Schedule attached to section 163A, after applying the method of multiplier as envisaged in the section. The claimants are also entitled to compensation for loss of ˜consortium™ and loss to the ˜Estate™. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Section-166 of the Act envisages that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the category of persons detailed/specified therein. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Section-166 of the Act envisages that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the category of persons detailed/specified therein. For facility of reference, Section-166 is reproduced as under: - 166.Application for compensation: - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be�; Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application�. 5. Section-163A of the Act has laid down special provisions as to the payment of compensation on structured formula basis. This section also reads as under: - 163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the 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. 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). 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.� 6. When a claimant claims compensation on the basis of structured formula, as per Second Schedule attached to the Act, the amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. In addition to this, compensation as per the structured formula, the General Damages� are to be awarded in case of death, i.e., ˜Funeral Expenses™, ˜loss of consortium™, if beneficiary is the spouse, ˜loss of Estate™ and Medical Expenses., but when the complainant has not claimed compensation on the basis of compensation on the structured formula then the ˜General Damages™ as per Second Schedule attached to the Act are not to be awarded. 7. A full Bench of Punjab and Harayana High Court in case reported as AIR 1979 Punjab & Harayana 50, Lachhman Singh and others versus Gurmit Kaur and others, while assessing the damages has laid down the following principles: - (1) The compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the person concerned, and no compensation is to be assessed on any extraneous consideration like love, affection, mental agony or any such similar consideration. Solatium is alien to the concept of compensation; (2) For the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependants should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependants will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then be multiplied by a suitable multiplier; (3) The suitable multiplier; as referred to in 2 above, shall be determined as held in Sudhakar™s case (AIR 1977 SC 1189) (supra), decided by the Supreme Court as well as in Mallet™s case (1969 Acc CJ 312) (HL) (supra), by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such like early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependants and their developing their independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned. Such benefits, however, should not include the amount of the insurance policy of the deceased to which the dependants may become entitled on account of its maturity as a result of the death. (4) The method adopted in certain decision of this Court of multiplying the amount of the annual loss to the dependants with the number of years by which the life has been cut short without anything else cannot be sustained and all those decisions in which this view has been taken are hereby overruled; (5) The compensation cannot be assessed on the basis of the so-called interest theory as the same provides the dependants with the capital as well as the amount of annual loss earned by way of interest and it also suffers from a number of other defects, as have been discussed in this judgment; and (6) Considerations of ever growing inflation and the decease in the money value are also not relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation�. 8. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni versus United Insurance Co. 8. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni versus United Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, AIR 2004 SC 2107, has held as under: - It may be true that Section 163-B provides for an option to a claimant to either go for a claim under Section 140 or Section 163-A of the Act, as the case may be, but the same was inserted ˜ex-abundanti cautela™ so as to remove any misconception in the mind of the parties to the lis having regard to the fact that both relate to the claim on the basis of no-fault liability. Having regard to the fact that Section 166 of the Act provides for a complete machinery for laying a claim on fault liability, the question of giving an option to the claimant to pursue their claims either under Section 163-A or Section 166 does not arise. If the submission of the learned counsel is accepted the same would lead to an incongruity�. It was further held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case as under: - Having regard to the fact that S.166 of the Act provides for a complete machinery for laying a claim on fault liability, the question of giving an option to the claimant to pursue their claims either under S. 163-A and 166 being final and independent of each other as statutorily provided, a complainant cannot peruse his remedies thereunder simultaneously. One, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under S.163-A or under S. 166 of the Act, but not under both�. 9. Under sections 163A (2) of the Act, when an application is moved for compensation on the basis of structured formula, the claimant shall not require to plead or to 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 and the compensation is to be awarded as per Second Schedule appended to it. When an application under section 166 of the Act has been moved for compensation, the claimant shall require to plead and establish that the death or permenant disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to the wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. When an application under section 166 of the Act has been moved for compensation, the claimant shall require to plead and establish that the death or permenant disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to the wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. Under sections 163A and 166 of the Act a complete different procedure has been prescribed. 10. Therefore, the remedies under sections 163A and 166 of the Act are alternate and independent to each other and not additional. Once the compensation has been assessed under section 166 by applying multiplier method then the ˜General Damages™ under the heads of ˜consortium™ and loss of ˜Estate™ cannot be awarded, as love and effection, mental agony and other materials cannot be taken into consideration�. While assessing the compensation under section 166, the income & age of the deceased at the time of death, dependency and age of the claimant is to be taken into consideration and then multiplier method is to be applied. For the reasons mentioned above, the award is modified to the extent that the claimants-respondents are not entitled to any compensation under the heads of loss of ˜consortium™ and loss of ˜Estate™. Therefore, Rs. 15,000/- awarded under each head totalling Rs. 30,000/- is deleted out of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal shall stand disposed of.