Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1262 (GAU)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Zasangi

2018-08-27

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/claimant. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite notice. 2. The appellant being aggrieved with the Judgment & Award dated 15.12.2016 passed in MACT Case No. 21/2015 has filed the present appeal. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the daughter of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Laltharili met with a motor vehicular accident on 27.04.2014 while she was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. MZ01G-8032. The said vehicle while proceeding towards Sawleng to Darlawn ran off the road and rolled down below the road for about 180 feet. As a result of the accident, the daughter of the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries and she was referred to the Civil Hospital at Aizawl, where her condition was found to be critical. Despite the treatment given to her at the hospital, the injured person succumbed to her injuries on 10.06.2014 in the hospital. As a result, the respondent No. 1, i.e., mother of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aizawl (The Tribunal). Consequently, the learned Tribunal vide its Judgment & Award dated 15.12.2016 awarded the respondent a sum of Rs. 7,61,684/- along with interest @9% from the date of filing the claim application i.e., 23.03.2015. 4. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Lalfakawma submits that the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and since the claimant produced a certified copy of the police report, the appellant broadly does not dispute the claim. However, he submits that the learned Tribunal has excessively awarded the respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh towards the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively. He further submits that since the deceased was a bachelor, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from her monthly income. The learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , insofar as, the conventional heads are concerned. Likewise he also relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Sarla Verma Vs. The learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , insofar as, the conventional heads are concerned. Likewise he also relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein, it was held that deduction of 50% from the monthly earning of a bachelor or a spinster as the case may be was found justified. He submits that the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra) also accepted such deduction as was held in Sarla Verma (Supra). Therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have awarded the amount through its Judgment & Award dated 15.12.2016. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal also committed a mistake in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,27,684/- towards medical expenses incurred by the injured person. In this connection, the learned counsel submits that if the claim was made under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the maximum amount of award that may be given towards medical expenses as per the second schedule is Rs. 15,000/- as onetime payment. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 will only be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses. Under the given circumstances, this Court may interfere with the impugned Judgment & Award dated 15.12.2016 by making suitable modifications in the award. 6. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the appellant otherwise accepted the claim to be a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, inasmuch as, it was their stand ' before the Tribunal that the Insurance Company denied their liability to pay compensation on fault basis. In this connection, he draws the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the appellant to substantiate his submission. Referring to the impugned Judgment & Award, the learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal came to a clear finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver concerned as the vehicle met with an accident on a straight road. Referring to the impugned Judgment & Award, the learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal came to a clear finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver concerned as the vehicle met with an accident on a straight road. He further submits that although the accident occurred on 27.04.2014, the daughter of the respondent No. 1 having sustained grievous injuries was given medical treatment but however, she succumbed her injuries on 10.6.14. The actual medical expenses incurred for the medical treatment was to the tune of Rs. 2,27,684/- and therefore, the learned Tribunal after accepting the medical vouchers submitted by the respondent No. 1, rightly awarded the same amount. Thus, the Judgment & Award of the learned Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the records of the learned Tribunal. A perusal of the claim application submitted before the Tribunal by the respondent No. 1 reveals that the claim was submitted as per the prescribed format provided by the Tribunal. Below column No. 24 of the claim application, there are three choices given for making the claim. The first two choices relates to a claim under Section 140 and under Section 166 of the MV Act on the principle of fault basis respectively. The third choice provides for a claim for compensation under Section 163-A only. It is noticed that a tick mark has been given against the third choice. Likewise, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, pursuant to the pronouncement of the Judgment & Award dated 15.12.2016, the learned Tribunal issued a corrigendum on 09.03.2017 for correcting the inadvertent clerical error at page No. 2 of the Judgment & Award i.e., Section 166-A which appeared in the Judgment & Award should be read as Section 163-A of the MV Act. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn under the circumstance is that the claim as well as the award has been made under Section 166-A of the MV Act. 8. Now coming to the amount awarded towards the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn under the circumstance is that the claim as well as the award has been made under Section 166-A of the MV Act. 8. Now coming to the amount awarded towards the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses. There can be no argument on this issue, inasmuch as, the Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fixed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each in respect of the loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses and therefore, the same amount will have to be adopted in the present case as well. Insofar as the amount of edictal expenses awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the MV Act as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is limited to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a onetime payment, insofar as, a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act is concerned. Besides the permissible limit towards medical expenses incurred, it may be noticed that Section 163-A of the MV Act is meant for those who have an actual income not exceeding Rs. 40,000/-. A claimant no doubt can be awarded compensation which is proportionate to the actual income of the injured or deceased person involved in the accident in a claim for compensation other than Section 163-A. However, the standard of proof will invariable be different from a claim under Section 163-A since the proof of fault is required to be established. As already noticed, since the claim was filed under Section 163-A, the awarded sum towards medical expenses will also have to be limited to the one that has been provided under the Second Schedule of the MV Act. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) held that since a bachelor has the tendency to spent more on himself, a deduction to the extent of 50% on his/her annual income will be justified. The same was the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra) where the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra) more particularly on this issue was accepted. The same was the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra) where the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra) more particularly on this issue was accepted. The aforesaid provision of law laid down by the Apex Court holds the field as on date and therefore, the deduction to be made from the annual income from the deceased person will also have to be suitably modified to 50%. 10. Under the given facts and circumstances, the Judgment & Award of the learned Tribunal stands modified as provided here-under:- 1. Loss of income Rs. 3000x12x50 =2,88,000 100 2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 4. Medical expenditure incurred 15,000 Total Compensation Awarded 3,33,000 (Rupees three lakhs thirty three thousand) only 11. Apart from the aforesaid modifications the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal is maintained. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount awarded along with interest before the Tribunal by way of a cheque issued in the name of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appellant is also permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit made before this Court amounting to Rs. 25,000/- along with the interest that has accrued from it as per the usual formalities. 12. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.