Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramya Raghavan And Anr. on 9 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)ACC890, 2006ACJ2347, 2006 (3) AIR KAR R 494
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The deceased in M.V.C. No. 2758 of 2003 is one Seethalaxmi. Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased. The deceased was travelling in the car belonging to her husband. The vehicle was driven by the licensed driver employed by her husband. In the course of the journey the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death. The petitioner has filed petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,70,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the petition till payment. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the car to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal.
3. The counsel for the appellant insured submits that the petitioner is a married daughter living at different place. Therefore, she cannot be deemed to be a dependant of the deceased. Nextly, it is argued that the petition under Section 163A is not maintainable.
4. Clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act declares that the income of the spouse to be reckoned as 1/3rd of the income of the earning surviving spouse. The husband of the deceased is a income tax assessee. The income tax return produced discloses the annual income of Rs. 1,04,402. 1/3rd of the said income to be reckoned as income of the deceased which will be in a sum of Rs. 34,452 which is less than the statutory limit of Rs. 40,000. Therefore, income of the deceased is less than the statutory limits and hence Section 163A is attracted. In the notional income of the deceased assessed, 1/3rd is to be deducted for personal expenses, the balance of Rs. 22,738 will enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The Tribunal has, however, considered the income at Rs. 20,000 per annum less than the notional income.
5. The petitioner is a named dependant under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act and entitled to seek compensation for loss of dependency and other permissible heads. The proof of actual dependency is not necessary in law. However, the legal representatives under Section 2 of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, are entitled to seek compensation for loss to estate and they cannot seek general damages and loss of dependency. That apart, note 6 of Second Schedule enables the legal heirs to seek compensation under Section 163A. The named dependants are entitled to seek compensation under Section 163A. In that view of the matter, the appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. The amount in deposit to be transferred to the Tribunal for payment.