Delhi High Court
Meena & Ors. vs Bhagwati Fabrics & Anr. on 30 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th January, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 101/2012
MEENA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate
versus
BHAGWATI FABRICS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
C.M. APPL. No.1718/2012 (delay in refiling)
There is a delay of 10 days in refilling the Appeal. For the
reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the Appeal is
condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CM. APPL. No.1717/2012(delay)
For the reasons given in the application, the delay in filing the
Appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC. APP. No.101/2012
1. This Appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the death
of Hari Kumar who was aged about 38 years at the time of the
accident which took place on 25.11.2007. In a petition under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal
by the impugned judgment awarded a compensation of
`4,15,000/-.
2. The Appellants grievance is that at the time of the accident, the
deceased had an income of `40,000/- per annum. If the
deceased had not died an untimely death, he would have earned
much more in the future and thus future prospects ought to have
been taken into consideration. It is also urged that the
compensation of `25,000/- awarded towards non-pecuniary
damages is very low. The multiplier as per II Schedule, argues
the learned counsel for the Appellant, was 16 at the age of 38;
the Tribunal fell into error in applying the multiplier of 15.
3. It is well-settled that if a claimant approaches a Claims Tribunal
for grant compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, he is
granted compensation on the basis of the structured formula as
given in the II Schedule to the Act. In Oriental Insurance
Company v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175, it was
held as under:
"15. In this context if we refer to the Review Committee's
Report, the reason for enacting Section 163-A is to give
earliest relief to the victims of the motor vehicle
accidents. The Committee observed that determination of
cases takes a long time and, therefore, under a system of
structural compensation, the compensation that is
payable for different classes of cases depending upon the
age of the deceased, the monthly income at the time of
death, the earning potential in the case of a minor, loss of
income on account of loss of limb etc. can be notified and
the affected party can then have option of their accepting
'lump sum' compensation under the Scheme of structural
compensation or of pursuing his claim through the
normal channels. The Report of the Review Committee
was considered by the State Governments and comments
were notified. Thereafter, the Transport Development
Council made suggestions for providing adequate
compensation to victims of road accidents without going
into long drawn procedure. As per the objects and
reasons, it is a new pre-determined formula for payment
of compensation to road accidents victims on the basis of
age/income, which is more liberal and rational. On the
basis of the said recommendation after considering the
Report of the Transport Development Council, the Bill
was introduced with 'a new pre-determined formula for
payment of compensation to road accident victims on the
basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational',
i.e. Section 163-A. It is also apparent that compensation
payable under Section 163-A is almost based on relevant
criteria for determining the compensation such as annual
income, age of the victim and multiplier to be applied. In
addition to the figure which is arrived at on the basis of
said criteria, the Schedule also provides that amount of
compensation shall not be less than Rs.50,000/-. It
provides for fixed amount of general damage in case of
death such as (1) Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses (2)
Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium, if beneficiary is the
spouse (3) Rs.2400/- for loss of estate (4) for medical
expenses supported by the bills, voucher not exceeding
Rs.15000/-. Similarly, for disability in a non-fatal
accident Para 5 of the Schedule provides for
determination of compensation on the basis of permanent
disability. Para 6 provides for notional income for those
who had no income prior to an accident at Rs.15000/-
per annum. There is also provision for reduction of 1/3rd
amount of compensation on the assumption that the
victim would have incurred the said amount towards
maintaining himself had he been alive. The purpose of
this Section and the II Schedule is to avoid long drawn
litigation and delay in payment of compensation to the
victims or his heirs who are in dire need of relief. If such
affected claimant opts for accepting the lump-sum
compensation based on structured formula, he would get
relief at the earliest. It also gives vital advantage of not
pleading or establishing any wrongful act or neglect or
default of the owner of the offending vehicle or vehicles.
This no-fault liability appears to have been introduced on
the basis of the suggestion of the Law Commission to the
effect that 'the expanding notions of social security and
social justice envisage that liability to pay compensation
must be "no-fault liability" and as observed by this Court
in Ramanbhai's case (Supra), "in order to meet to some
extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths and
injuries caused in road accidents." However, this benefit
can be availed of by the claimant only by restricting his
claim on the basis of income at a slab of Rs.40,000/-
which is the highest slab in the II Schedule which
indicates that the legislature wanted to give benefit of no-
fault liability to a certain limit. This would clearly
indicate that the Scheme is in alternative to the
determination of compensation on fault basis under the
Act. The object underlining the said amendment is to pay
compensation without there being any long drawn
litigation on an predetermined formula, which is known
as 'structured formula' basis which itself is based on
relevant criteria for determining compensation and the
procedure of paying compensation after determining the
fault is done away. Compensation amount is paid without
pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of social
justice as a social security measure because of ever
increasing motor vehicles accidents in a 'fast moving'
society. Further, the law before insertion of Section 163-
A was giving limited benefit to the extent provided under
Section 140 for no-fault liability and determination of
compensation amount on fault liability was taking a long
time. That mischief is sought to be remedied by
introducing Section 163-A and the disease of delay is
sought to be cured to a large extent by affording benefit
to the victims on 'structured formula' basis. Further, if
the question of determining compensation on fault
liability is kept alive it would result in additional
litigation and complications in case claimants fail to
establish liability of the owner of the defaulting vehicles."
4. Similarly, in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India
Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385 and Oriental
Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC
428, it was held that a person can apply to the Tribunal to claim
compensation in terms of the Schedule without proving the
negligence or default on the part of the driver/owner of the
offending vehicle. It is true that the Tribunal committed an
error in applying the multiplier of 15 which should have been
16, but at the same time the compensation awarded towards
loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium was
granted as `25,000/-, against the limit of `9,500/- provided in
clause 3 of the II Schedule. The overall compensation of
`4,15,000/- awarded under Section 163-A is just and proper. It
does not call for any interference.
5. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2012
pst
