Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 260 (ALL)

RAM BABU v. MEERA DEVI

2016-01-19

KRISHNA MURARI, RAGHUVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
ORDER : 1. This First Appeal From Order has been preferred on behalf of owner of the truck under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award and order dated 27.10.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.780 of 2010 (Meera Devi v. Ram Nath and others). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant should have preferred the claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 instead of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the cause of accident is attributable to the negligence of the Power Corporation as the deceased sustained fatal injuries on account of falling down of electric wire on the vehicle during the course of employment. Further contention is that the accident is not attributable to the use of a motor vehicle. As such, the claim petition of the claimant-respondent no.1 is not maintainable within the ambit of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been submitted that two fold options were available before the claimant-respondent no.1, either to prefer a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, or a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Admittedly, the petition has been preferred under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the options regarding the claim for compensation in certain cases, which is being reproduced herein below :- "Section 167. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice tot he provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both." 6. From bare reading of this section it is explicit that if any right has accrued for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the option lies with the person entitled to compensation and he may take recourse to provisions of either of the two Acts for claiming the compensation. From bare reading of this section it is explicit that if any right has accrued for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the option lies with the person entitled to compensation and he may take recourse to provisions of either of the two Acts for claiming the compensation. In view of the legal proposition as enunciated under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the claimant-respondent has taken recourse to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it does not per se disclose any illegality in the claim petition. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the claim petition does not appear to have substance and as such, it cannot be sustained. 7. Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the "special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis", which is being reproduced herein below :- "Section 163A.(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 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." 8. (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." 8. The phraseology used by the Legislature clearly reveals that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, as per the structured formula in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be. The words "accident arising out of use of motor vehicle" has been employed by the Legislature. 9. Admittedly, truck is a motor vehicle, which was in use at the time of accident when the electric wire fell down on the vehicle. The submission about the maintainability of the claim petition for award of compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act as argued cannot be sustained. 10. More so, the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as notionally of Rs.3000/-. ?th of the income has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and reducing that amount the monthly income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.2400/-. It was multiplied by 12 so as to calculate the annual income, which come to Rs.28,800/-. The age of the deceased was 27 years 8 months, hence the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 as permissible in the law between age group of 25- 30 years and the annual income was calculated as Rs.28,800/- x 18 = Rs.5,18,400/-. Apart from this, Rs.2500/- were awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.5000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and adding that amount the total amount of compensation was determined as Rs.5,27,900/- by the Tribunal. The income as assessed by the Tribunal for the purposes of award of compensation is within the pecuniary limit of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. The accident was the outcome of the use of motor vehicle i.e. truck and the electric wire fell upon it as a consequence of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death. 11. The accident was the outcome of the use of motor vehicle i.e. truck and the electric wire fell upon it as a consequence of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death. As such, exercising the options available under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the claimant-respondent resorted to the remedy contemplated under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant has exercised the right to claim compensation within the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, the petition is maintainable and the Tribunal has neither erred in law in awarding the compensation nor it has travelled beyond the jurisdiction. 12. In the aforesaid view of things, the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant do not have force and are not sustainable. The quantum of compensation determined by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal vide award dated 27.10.2015 is in accordance with the provisions of law, as such, no interference in the impugned award is warranted. 13. This First Appeal From Order is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.