Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 618 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Champa Devi

2018-04-11

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - When this case was taken up for arguments today, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that though the award was initially challenged on two grounds, i.e., (a) that the claim petition was not maintainable at the behest of legal representatives of the person whose rash and negligent driving had resulted into the accident; and (b) that /rd deduction as per the conditions of the Schedule contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of personal expenditure has not been done by the learned Tribunal, but in view of the judgment so passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and another, 2018 Accident Claims Journal, 1 , the first ground has been rendered infructuous and he confines his arguments to the second ground only i.e., that there was an apparent perversity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal, as it had erred in not making /rd deductions as per the Note appended with Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the award under challenge as well as the records of the case. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that a claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by respondents No.1 to 5/claimants on the ground that on 20.5.1998 deceased, Yash Pal, was driving ill-fated vehicle bearing registration No. HP-09-0061 at around 10:25 p.m., when the same met with an accident, while on its way from Theog to Kuthar, District Shimla, as a result of which, Yash Pal died on account of injuries so sustained by him in the accident. Learned Tribunal while awarding an amount of Rs. 6,42,000/- in favour of the claimants, held that it stood proved on record that income of deceased was Rs. 3,200/- per month and that his age was 30 years and thereafter it went on to award an amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency as per Schedule Second of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In addition, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as reasonable funeral compensation. 4. 3,200/- per month and that his age was 30 years and thereafter it went on to award an amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency as per Schedule Second of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In addition, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as reasonable funeral compensation. 4. As already mentioned above, learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his submissions in the appeal only qua the ground that there was infirmity to the effect that while awarding the amount of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act as statutory deduction which had to be carried out on account of expenses which victim would have incurred on himself was not done by the learned Tribunal. This point has been fairly conceded to by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and he has fairly submitted that to this extent the award requires modification. 5. A perusal of the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act demonstrates that there is a Note appended below it, which reads as under:- "The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by /rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive." 6. Now admittedly, while granting award on account of death of the deceased, learned Tribunal below did not reduce the income of the victim by /rd in consideration of expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. As the monthly income of the deceased was arrived at by the learned Tribunal to be Rs. 3,200/- per month, from this /rd amount was liable to be deducted for the assessment of compensation to be awarded. Failure on the part of the learned Tribunal to do so is bad in law. This in my considered view calls for modification of the award. Now as the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3200/-, after deducting /rd from the same, the same comes to approximately to Rs. 2134/-. Learned counsel have agreed that this amount be assumed to be Rs. 2150/- per month. This amount has now to be multiplied by 12 in order to assess the annual income of the deceased and thereafter the same has to be further multiplied with the multiplier of 18. 2134/-. Learned counsel have agreed that this amount be assumed to be Rs. 2150/- per month. This amount has now to be multiplied by 12 in order to assess the annual income of the deceased and thereafter the same has to be further multiplied with the multiplier of 18. Accordingly, the award to which the claimants are entitled to comes as under:- Rs. 2150 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,64,400/-. In addition to this the claimants shall also be entitled for funeral compensation as has been assessed by the learned Tribunal. Impugned award is modified to the extent above. 7. Appeal is disposed of in above terms and impugned award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MACT No. 58-S/2 of 2010 dated 31.5.2013 is modified as indicated above.