Delhi High Court
Kusum & Anr. vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors. on 24 February, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$-19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th February, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 110/2014
KUSUM & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. B.P. Saxena, Adv.
versus
RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.2,97,837/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Akash, who died in a
motor vehicular accident which occurred on 07.09.32010.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the
Appellants is that since the Claim Petition was filed under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V.Act),
the multiplier ought to have been taken as per Schedule-II,
appended to the M.V. Act.
3. In New India Assurance Company limited v. Pitamber & Ors.,
MAC APP.304/2009, decided on 23.01.2012, I had the occasion
to consider the question whether compensation in a petition
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V.
Act) has to be awarded strictly in accordance with the Second
Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. I referred
to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai
Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC
385; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal
(2007) 5 SCC 428 and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., (1977) 2 SCC 441 and held that in
a petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, compensation
has to be only in accordance with the Second Schedule. Para 23
of the report in Pitamber & Ors. (supra) is extracted
hereunder:-
"23. In the later judgment of the Supreme Court
in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena
Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428 while referring to Minu
B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan &
Anr., (1977) 2 SCC 441, 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 and in other
cases, the Claimants had to approach the Court
under Section 166 of the Act and were necessarily
under obligation to prove the negligence. Para 27
of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B.
Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan
and Anr. (supra) was accepted by the legislature
while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by
introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for
payment of compensation notwithstanding
anything contained in the Act or in any other law
for the time being in force that the owner of a
motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be
liable to pay in the case of death or permanent
disablement due to accident arising out of the use
of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in
the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made
under Sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the Act,
the 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 concerned. Therefore, the
victim of an accident or his dependants have an
option either to proceed under Section 166 of the
Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they
approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the
Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves
the burden of establishing the negligence of the
driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if
they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the
compensation will be awarded in terms of the
Schedule without calling upon the victim or his
dependants to establish any negligence or default
on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver
of the vehicle."
4. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that in a petition under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, income of the victim,
multiplier, deduction and non-pecuniary damages have to be in
accordance with Second Schedule to the M.V. Act.
5. Consequently, the multiplier ought to have been 17 instead of
11, as adopted by the Claims Tribunal.
6. The loss of dependency on multiplies of 17 comes to
`4,53,333/- (40,000/- x 2/3 x 17).
7. In addition, the Appellants are entitled to a sum of `2,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and `2,500/- towards funeral
expenses.
8. The overall compensation thus, comes to `4,57,833/-.
9. The compensation is hence enhanced by `1,59,996/- which
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the petition till its payment.
10. Respondent no.1, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along
with proportionate interest within six weeks, failing which the
Appellants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from
the date of this judgment.
11. The compensation as awarded by this Court shall be
released/held in fixed deposit in terms of the orders passed by
the Claims Tribunal.
12. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
vk
