Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of an applicant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, First Court, Fast Track Court, Sealdah, in M.A.C. Case No.1801 of 2006 thereby disposing of the said application by awarding a sum of Rs.54,500-/ in favour of the appellant along with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim-application till the realisation of the awarded amount.

Being dissatisfied, the applicant has come up with the present appeal. Mr Santosh Kumar Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that his client having applied under Section 163A of the Act, there was no scope of assessing the amount by considering the age of the claimant. Mr Das contends that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the multiplier should be fixed on the basis of the age of the victim and not according to the age of the claimant.

Therefore, the first question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the Tribunal was entitled to rely upon the age of the claimant for finding out the multiplier.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provision contained in Section 163A of the Act, we find that the legislature by way of amendment in the year 1994 introduced the said provision notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in order to give immediate relief to the comparatively weaker section of the people where the annual income of the victim was less than Rupees forty thousand. In those cases, even the negligence of the offending vehicle is not required to be proved. However, if a claimant avails of the said provision, after the disposal of the said proceedings, he cannot start afresh under Section 166 of the Act in expectation of any additional compensation. (See: Deepal Girish Bhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2004(2) T.A.C. 289(SC)).

It is true that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act, as it stands, do not permit, taking into consideration the age of the claimant, while assessing the amount of compensation in such a proceeding but we cannot lose sight of the provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution declaring that the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be the law of the land binding upon all. Once the Supreme Court specifically lays down that in case of a bachelor died of an accident, while assessing compensation by way of the multiplier method, the age of the claimant is also to be considered, such decision is binding upon all the Courts and the Tribunals in this country. Therefore, the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by Mr K.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, applying the aforesaid principles to the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act are binding upon us as precedent.