Telangana High Court
Smt. V. Sulochana vs Mr. Venkat Reddy Neguri on 26 November, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3136 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 1905 0f 2013, dated 11.05.2016, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) for the death of one V. Srinivas, who is the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). According to the claimants, on the fateful day i.e., 03.05.2013, while the husband of petitioner No.1 was on his way to home from NSF Factory on his bicycle, at about 7:00 PM near Pasuputeruvaga bridge, a DCM van bearing No. AP 24 V 9186 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the bicycle of the 2 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 husband of petitioner No.1. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Medak and later to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 04.05.2013. Based on the information received, Police, Medak Town registered a case in First Information Report (FIR) No. 104 of 2013 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 against the driver of crime vehicle and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet holding that the driver of DCM van.
4. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 30 years and he was a working in NFC Factory and used to earn Rs, 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 24 V 9186, for the death of the deceased under different heads.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1/owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte and whereas the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the 3 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 claim petition, the manner in which the accident occurred, the age, avocation and income of the deceased and that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
a) Whether the deceased died in the accident on 03.05.2013 due to accident arising out of use of crime DCM van bearing No. AP 24 V 9186?
b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a compensation, if so, to what quantum and from whom such quantum is recoverable?
c) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, the claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and relied upon documentary evidence in the form of Exs. A1 to A5 on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent 4 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 No.2, none were examined but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex. B1.
8. The learned tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioners/claimants and making respondent Nos.1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,89,506/- jointly and severally from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioners/claimants herein filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the same under various head.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the entire material available on record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/claimants is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent oral evidence apart from relying on the documentary evidence under Exs. A1 to A5, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, has erroneously awarded meager compensation without awarding any future prospects, other 5 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 conventional heads and thereby sought for enhancement of compensation amount by relying upon the decisions of Honourable Supreme Court in R.K Malik and another v. Kiran Paul 1, Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2, Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parhar and others 3, Asha Verman and others v. Maharaj Singh and others 4, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 5, UP Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal has granted adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree by the learned Tribunal?
12. PW1, who is the wife of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. It is significant to note that the appellant No. 1 was not an eyewitness to the 1 2009 (14) SCC 1 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 2013 ACJ 1403 4 2015 ACJ 1286 5 2017 (16) SCC 680, 6 1996) 4 SCC 362 6 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 accident and her evidence is solely based on records submitted by the Police under Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Medak Town registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2013 for the offences under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1806 against the driver of DCM van bearing No. AP 24 V 9186, took up investigation and during the course of investigation, Ex.A2- inquest report was prepared, Ex.A3 postmortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and after completion of investigation Ex.A4 charge sheet was filed against the driver of DCM van bearing No.AP 24 V 9186 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
13. There is no dispute as to the manner of accident is concerned and the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a claim petition under the above provision is based on 'No Fault Liability' i.e., proof of negligence is not required to be proved and accident must have occurred due to vehicular involvement. Further, the insurance company has not examined any of its officials and only filed Ex. B-1 copy of insurance policy, which was in force as on the date of accident and the said DCM van bearing No. AP 24 V 9186 belongs to respondent No.1. The learned 7 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 Tribunal found issues under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and after evaluating the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the appellants/claimants have proved the required ingredients to maintain claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore, the said findings of the learned Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective, for which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the only dispute in the present Appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
14. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased as 30 years and as there was no documentary evidence in respect of income of the deceased, has taken annual income at the rate of Rs.40,000/- based on the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and multiplied the same with appropriate multiplier '18' and as there are three dependents, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. 8
MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016
15. Now the important point that arises for consideration is, "whether in the compensation granted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 7 and Pranay Sethi's case (supra), is applicable or not? It is pertinent to mention here that the claim was made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The purpose of the legislature for introducing Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was as a beneficial in other words a welfare piece of legislation. Any claim made under the Section 163-A of the Act, exempts the claimants from proving the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is a well settled principle of law that even if the claimant is at fault; he can resort to Section 163-A of the Act. The principle of law settled in the above cited cases was in respect of a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, when the basis on which the dependents of a deceased in death cases and victim himself in case of injuries can be entitled to compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 7 2009 (6) SCC 121 9 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 are different from that of the requirements postulated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the principle of law settled by the court or a precedent in respect of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be used as a straight jacket formula in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act and only guided as per second Schedule provide in the Act.
16. Further, it is pertinent to reiterate the observation made by Honourable Supreme Court In Smt.Sarla Varma's (supra) case cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph No.17 held as follows:
"17. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes up to 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/-, by applying the formula : 10
MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 (2/3 x AI x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation."
17. This court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd v. M. Sarala and others at paragraph 12 has observed that:
"12.....However, since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. Recently Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in case of "The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Dilu Rai and Other (M.A.C.A. No.10 of 2018, dated:04.4.2022)", held as follows: "It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise.
20.......... under Section 163A future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act." 8
18. In Gunjari Devi v. Lal Mohan Yadav 9 the High Court of Jharkhand observed as under:
"12. It is pertinent to mention here that the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As has already been held by this Court in the case of Sohwa Devi & Ors. vs. Ranjit Das & Anr. in M.A. No.148 of 2010 (supra), the purpose of legislation for introducing Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was as a beneficial piece of legislation. Any claim made under the Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 exempts the claimant from proving the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is a settled principle of law that even if the claimant is at fault; he can resort to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 8 MACMA No.1374 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2023 TSHC.9 M.A.No.196 of 2011 decided on 17.07.2022 11
MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) or for that matter in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru (supra) were in respect of a claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So when the basis on which the dependents of a victim in case of death of the victim or the victim himself can be entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are different from the requirements of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the principle of law settled by the court or a precedent in respect of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used as a strait jacket formula in respect of a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the principles of law as enunciated in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru (supra) regarding adding additional amount towards future prospects in case of applications under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot as a general rule be applied in respect of an application filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or for that purpose the compensation under filial consortium, spousal consortium, parental consortium or other conventional head under general damages cannot be applied to an application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 because Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act has in no uncertain manner envisages that under funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, loss of consortium, if the beneficiary is spouse Rs.5,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.5,000/- it is to be awarded. So this Court is also of the considered view that the appellant-claimants are entitled to general damages of Rs.9,500/- only and not ₹2,01,000/- claimed by them.
19. These observations in the above cited decisions unequivocally clarify that compensation under Section 163-A of the Act is based on no fault liability and the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non- tangibles and future prospects does not arise. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for appellants/ claimants in R.K Malik's case (supra) which adverts to the 12 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 decision of Apex court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar 10 case holds no relevance herein as those cases were concerned with death of minors, who were non-earning members of the family.
20. It is further contended by the claimants that though the decease earning Rs.10,000/- perm month by working as worker in NFC Factory, the Tribunal considered only Rs.40,000/- as income of the deceased per annum. In this regard, the claimants relied upon a decision in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundram Allians 11, wherein the Honourable Apex Court observed that earnings of coolie was considered @ Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of any income proof. However, as can be seen from the paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants exceeds the maintainability of an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act and on that the learned counsel for the claimants agreed to restrict the claim to the limit prescribed in the table annexed to the second schedule. When the learned counsel for the claimants before the Tribunal has categorically restricted his claim 10 2001 8 SCC 197 11 (2011) 13 SCC 236 13 MGP,J MACMA No.3136/2016 to the limit prescribed in the schedule, the claimants are precluded from raising the same ground in the Appeal. Furthermore, it is settled law that when the Annual Income exceeds Rs.40,000/-, the Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. Thus, the above contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is unsustainable.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the above settled principle of law laid down in the above said decisions, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence granted just and reasonable compensation as per Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. As there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, the Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
22. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 26.11.2024 AS