The single judge bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sri Santosh Saha and Another Vs The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the minor victim aged about 8 years was going to her uncle’s house and during that time, one vehicle dashed the victim, so she fell on the road and died on the spot. The Application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs 1,60,000/- by the parents of the victim. The tribunal granted the compensation of Rs 15,000 with interest, resulting in the appeal before the present court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that at the time of dealing with the application of 163A of the motor vehicle act, the need of proof of negligence is baseless. It was further contended that the notional income of the victim should also be taken into account. Also, the multiplier should be if the victim is below the age of 15 years. It was also contended that when determining compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act, it is important to take into account how economic conditions and the rate of inflation have changed since the Second Schedule was passed in 1994.
Contentions of the Respondent
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the determination of the compensation should be strictly based on the formula provided in the second schedule of the motor vehicle act.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is clear from a simple reading of the provisions that, in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to allege or establish that the death or permanent disability for which the claim has been made was caused by any wrongful act, negligence, or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or owners in question, or of any other person. Furthermore, the decision of the learned Tribunal regarding the driver's negligence is not in accordance with the rules envisioned by Section 163A of the Act. The Hon’ble Court set aside the finding of the learned tribunal.
It was noted that the Second Schedule to the Act still contains the field and must be followed when applying under Section 163A of the Act for compensation to be calculated using a structured formula. For non-earners, a notional annual income of Rs. 15,000 is allowed under the Second Schedule to the Act.
With regard to the issue of the multiplier, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the multiplier for a victim of road accident who was aged below 15 years would be 20.
Also, the Second Schedule to the Act's structured formula should be used to determine compensation in applications made under Section 163A of the Act. A deduction of one-third of the notional income for personal and living expenses as specified in the Second Schedule is to be taken into consideration.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondent no.1-Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,89,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till deposit, by way of cheque with learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta within a period of six weeks from date.
Decision of the court
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court disposed of the appeal.
Case Title: Sri Santosh Saha and Another Vs The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bivas Pattanayak
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mandal, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Paul, Advocate Ms. Jaita Ghosh, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :