THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1764 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.02.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.552 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal"). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim- petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of K.Ramesh, the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.12.2005, on the ground that the income of the deceased, as claimed by the claimants, is more than Rs.40,000/- and therefore, the petition under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.
2. The appellants herein, who are claimants before the Tribunal, being dependents of the deceased-K.Ramesh, filed the O.P. under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,32,000/- for the death of 2 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 the deceased in the accident that occurred on 30.12.2005. According to them, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in jeep bearing No.AP 36 V 7118, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, from Station Ghanpur to Hanamkonda side, when the jeep reached near Rampur bus stage, the driver lost control over the Jeep and dashed the DCM Van bearing No.AP 16 W 850 coming in opposite direction, which is owned by respondent No.1. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents.
3. Considering the claim and counter filed by the respondents, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim-petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act holding that the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable as the claimants claimed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month which works out to Rs.48,000/- per annum and as it has exceeded Rs.40,000/- as prescribed 3 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 under Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3. Perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim-petition on two grounds i.e., firstly, the claimants have failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling and secondly, as the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contended that the Tribunal has ignored the very purpose of the intent of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, since Section 163-A of the M.V.Act prescribes that "in any claim for compensation under sub-clause (1) of Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, the claimants shall not be required to plead 4 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, negligent or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person." Furthermore, although the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/- per annum, the Tribunal instead of dismissing the claim on technicalities, ought to have awarded just compensation taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum as prescribed under Schedule-II of the M.V.Act. Therefore, since the claimants are not under obligation to prove the negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, the learned counsel sought to set aside the findings of the Tribunal and allow the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim-petition as the same is not 5 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 maintainable under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act since the income of the deceased exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum.
7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar1 the Apex Court held as under:-
"8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 1 AIR 2017 SC 5710 6 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
8. In the instant case also, as the present claim-petition filed by the claimants is under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, in view of the above decision, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the issue of negligence on the part of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and instead the Tribunal ought to decided the point whether or not the accident was occurred due to involvement of the vehicles i.e., the Jeep, in which the deceased was travelling and the DCM Van. As seen from the contents of Ex.A1, First Information Report, Ex.A2, inquest report and Ex.A5, charge sheet, the accident occurred due to the involvement of both the vehicles i.e., Jeep, in which the deceased was travelling and the DCM Van. Furthermore, the second ground on the which the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. was that the claimants have claimed the annual 7 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/- per annum which is morethan the income as prescribed under Schedule-II of the M.V.Act. Though the claimants have claimed more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, nothing prevented the Tribunal from proceeding with the matter by restricting the annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum. After all, the provision of Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.P. on mere technicalities. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings of the Tribunal.
9. Since this Court, basing on Exs.A1, A2 and A5, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the involvement of both the vehicles i.e., jeep, in which the deceased was travelling and the DCM Van, now proceed to quantify the compensation.
10. While determining the compensation only in structural formula under Section 163-A and Second Schedule of the M.V. Act can be considered since the 8 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 claim-petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.40,000/- per annum as the deceased was working as tailor. From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family works out to Rs.30,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A3-Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, as per the structural formula under Schedule-II, proper multiplier applicable in the case on hand is '18'. Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,000/- x 18 = Rs.5,40,000/-. Apart from the above, as per the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,52,000/- towards compensation, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 9
MGP, J Macma_1764_2016
11. Since the accident occurred due to involvement of both the vehicles, out of the compensation amount of Rs.5,52,000/-, respondent No.1 being the owner of the DCM Van is liable to pay Rs.2,76,000/- towards 50% compensation and respondent Nos.2 and 3, being the owner and insurer of the Jeep, in which the deceased was travelling, are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining 50% compensation i.e., Rs.2,76,000/-.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and decree. The claimants are awarded the compensation of Rs.5,52,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum. Out of the said compensation, claimant No.1, being wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.1,02,000/-, claimant Nos.2 and 3, being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- each and claimant Nos.4 and 5, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.75,000/- each. Respondent No.1, being the owner of the DCM Van, is liable to pay Rs.2,76,000/- being 50% compensation and 10 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 respondent Nos.2 and 3, being the owner and insurer of the Jeep, in which the deceased was travelling, are jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining 50% compensation i.e., Rs.2,76,000/-. Time for depositing the amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 02.01.2023 Tsr 11 MGP, J Macma_1764_2016 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 1764 of 2016 DATE: -01-2023