Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs Page No.# 2/19 on 1 October, 2024
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010101072021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./176/2021
REMTLING HMAR AND 3 ORS
W/O LALBUOITHANG HMAR, P/R/O VILL-GAMVOM, P.O. AND P.S.-MAHUR,
DIST-DIMA HASAO, ASSAM (MOTHER)
2: LALBUOITHANG HMAR
S/O LATE PAUNIENG HMAR
P/R/O VILL-GAMVOM
P.O. AND P.S.-MAHUR
DIST-DIMA HASAO
ASSAM P/R/A GALI NO. 9
C/O M/S FREIGHT CARRIER INDIA PVT. LTD.
P.O. AND P.S.-BASITHA
GUWAHATI
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781029 (FATHER)
3: MISS CHONG NEI VAH
D/O LATE CALVIN LALROCHUNG
P/R/O VILL- GAMVOM
P.O. AND P.S.-MAHUR
DIST- DIMA HASAO
ASSAM (MINOR DAUGHTER OF DECEASED CALVIN LALROCHUNG AND
ARE REPRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT NO. 1)
4: MISS CHONG BOI NEM
D/O LATE CALVIN LALROCHUNG
P/R/O VILL- GAMVOM
P.O. AND P.S.-MAHUR
DIST- DIMA HASAO
ASSAM (MINOR DAUGHTER OF DECEASED CALVIN LALROCHUNG AND
ARE REPRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT NO. 1
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/19
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS.
REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 (INSURER OF THE
RECOVERY VAN)
2:MD. MOJAKKIR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA
S/O HAZI A.R. BARBHUIYA
R/O ITKHOLA GHANIWALA END
SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788002 (OWNER OF THE RECOVERY VAN)
3:HARILAL RAVI DAS
S/O SRI BISWANATH RAVI DAS
R/O MASIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-788001 (DRIVER OF THE RECOVERY VAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, MR. P MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA (R-1), MS C BORAH (R-1),MS. M CHOUDHURY
(R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
JUDGMENT
01.10.2024
Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Dutta,
learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed
against the judgment and award, dated 19.06.2021, passed by the learned
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC
Case No. 2079/2017.
Page No.# 3/19
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award, dated
19.06.2021, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('MACT', for
short) No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, had directed the respondent No. 1 to pay a
sum of Rs. 2,87,920/- only, with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of
filing of the claim petition i.e. 13.10.2017, till its realization.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly
stated as under:
"The appellants herein as claimants, filed a claim petition, being MAC Case
No. 2079/2017, before the learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati,
claiming compensation on account of death of one Calvin Lalrochung in a
motor accident. The accident took place on 01.01.2013, at about 11:30
p.m. while one recovery van, bearing Registration No. MZ-01-C-3869,
being driven by one Harilal Ravidas, in a negligent manner towards Kolasib
from Silchar and ran over said Calvin Lalrochung, resulting in his death on
the spot. Deceased Calvin Lalrochung was the only son of the claimant
Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire family members were dependent upon him
and therefore, claimant Nos. 1 and 2, being the parents and claimants No.
3 and 4, being the minor daughters of the deceased, filed the claim
petition, and that the deceased was carpenter by profession and his
monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- per month and in respect of the said
accident, Kolasib P.S. Case No. 1/2013, under Sections 279/304A/337/427
of the IPC, had been registered. Upon the said claim petition, the learned
Member, MACT No. 3 had issued notice to the respondents, who entered
appearance and filed their written statements and thereafter, hearing the
learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Member, MACT No. 3
had allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay
Page No.# 4/19
compensation as aforesaid."
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court on the
following grounds:
(i) That, there is an error in assessment of the compensation and the
learned Member, MACT No. 3 had arrived at a wrong finding in
respect of the quantum of compensation.
(ii) That, the learned member MACT No.3, Guwahati had assessed the
compensation as per Second Schedule and held that as per Second
Schedule, compensation for third party fatal accidents, within the
age group above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years, is fixed at
Rs. 680/ per annum. But, as per the Second Schedule Rs.680/ has to
be counted in thousand.
(iii) That, deduction of one-third is wrong as there are four claimants,
namely, father, mother, two minor daughters, in view of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it ought to have
been one-fourth.
(iv) That, the learned Member, MACT No. 3 had wrongly decided the
issue No. 2 and determined the quantum @ Rs. 97,920/- and also
committed grave error in law, while assessing compensation as per
Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended.
6. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the
grounds mentioned herein above and submits that even assessing the
compensation as per Second Schedule, in case of third party fatal accidents,
Page No.# 5/19
within the age group above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years, which is fixed
at Rs. 680/ per annum, ought to have been counted in thousand not as Rs.680/
only and the same has been clearly indicated in the Schedule itself. Further Mr.
Chauhan submits that the deceased left behind four dependent family members,
and as such in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and Ors.(supra) the deduction towards personal expenses
ought to have been 1/4th only. Mr. Chauhan also submits that the learned
Tribunal had awarded the interest @ 7.5% per annum. But, it ought to have
been @9% per annum. Mr. Chauhan also submits that future prospect has not
been added by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation.
Therefore, Mr. Chauhan has contended to allow this appeal by assessing the just
compensation herein this case in the light of the law presently occupying the
field. Mr. Chauhan also referred following decisions in support of his
submission:-
(i) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
(ii) Ningamma and Anr. vs. United Indian Insurance Company
Limited, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710.
(iii)Master Ayush vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., in Civil Appeal Nos. 2205-
2206 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7238-39
of 2021)
(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. V. Siami and
Ors., reported in 2021 (1) GLT 20.
(v) Rajendra Singh and Ors. vs. National Insurance Company
Page No.# 6/19
Limited and Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256.
7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the
respondent No. 1 submits that there is no apparent infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award, dated 19.06.2021, except, however, in respect of the
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, which ought to have
been 1/4th and that the multiplier is also applied correctly and also the interest
@ 7.5% per annum, is justified and reasonable. Mr. Dutta further submits that
he has no objection in the event of making necessary correction in respect of
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased in the impugned
judgment.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone
through the memo of appeal and documents placed on record and also perused
the impugned judgment and award, dated 19.06.2021.
9. Herein this case, the entitlement of compensation by the claimants has
not been disputed. The grievance of the appellants are in respect of deduction
toward personal expenses and in respect of failing to add future prospect and
the rate of interest and consequent mistake in assessment of the quantum of
compensation.
10. That a careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award, dated
19.06.2021, reveals that in paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23,
the learned Member had discussed the issues in question. I deemed it
appropriate to reproduce the same herein below for ready reference:
"16. In the instant case as though claimant alleged in the claim
petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.
15,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/- PA but no cogent evidence is
Page No.# 7/19
found in support of the claim. Income of deceased was not proved
by adducing any documentary evidence. It was even not proved
that deceased was carpenter.
However, considering the fact that the accident took place in
the year 2013 i.e. on 01.01.2013 and the deceased was aged about
29 years as per evidence of claimant, the monthly income of the
deceased was taken at Rs. 3333/- per month or Rs.40,000/- per
annum. As per Second Schedule compensation for third party fatal
accidents within the age group above 25 years but not exceeding
30 years is fixed at Rs. 680/- per month. So, annual income will
be 8160. According to second schedule multiplier will be 18.
Hence total compensation will be Rs. (8160 x 18) =146,880. Out
of which 1/3rd will be reduced in consideration of the expenses
which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself
had he been alive, as per second schedule. In instant case 1/3rd
of compensation will be Rs.48,960/- which is required to be
deducted from the total compensation.
17. Learned Counsel by placing reliance the Notification in
respect of Second Schedule under section 163A of the MV Act for
compensation for third party fatal accident submitted that the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been further amended, deleting
Section 163A and the Second Schedule given under said section.
The amendment was made on 14.08.2019 which was notified in the
Gazette of India on 30th August, 2019 which means the
compensation which is required to be assessed now deals with
amendment dated 22.05.2018. According to amended provision of
Section 163A, in case of fatal accident, the compensation amount
in case of death is Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the amendment, there
is no provision of one third deduction from the compensation.
Page No.# 8/19
18. I have gone through the Notification, in which it is
clearly mentioned that the notification shall come into from on
the date of its publication in the official Gazette. So, it has
no retrospective effect. In the instant case the accident took
place on 01.01.2013 and the notification was published in the
official Gazette on 22.05.2018.. As such, the present claim is
not come within the amended Second Schedule. The argument
advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the claimant in this regard is
discarded.
19. Regarding the conventional heads, the Hon'ble Apex Court,
in the case of National Insurance Co, Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (supra), has held at Para 54 as
follows:
"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in
Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs.
1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor
children. The head relating to loss of care and minor
children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh
Devi, It does not seem to follow the same. The conventional
and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the
said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must
have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall In bank interest,
escalation of rates in may a field have to be noticed. The
court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a
Page No.# 9/19
thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme
difficulty in determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which,
the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to
be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum- centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that we
have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate
of 10% in a span of three years. We disposed to hold so
because that will bring in consistency in respect of those
heads"
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, reported
in (2018) 18 SCC 130; (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153, has held at
Para 8.7 as follows:
"8.7. A constitution Bench of this court in Pranay Sethi
(Supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortlum. In legal parlance, consortium
is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium,
parental consortium, and filial consortium. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort,
Page No.# 10/19
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a
loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would
include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal
consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband with which allows compensation to
the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, co-
operation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation. Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of
parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of
the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental
death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a
child causes great shock and agony to the parents and
family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is
to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are
valued for their love, affection, companionship and their
role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of
a child consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of
the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
Page No.# 11/19
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases
of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their
minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of
Filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to
children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accident
under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this counts.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation would be awarded on loss
of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under Loss of Consortium as laid down
in Pranay Sethi (Supra). In the present case, we deem it
appropriate to award the father and sister of the deceased,
an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of Filial
Consortium."
21. In the light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the claimant No.1 & 2 (mother and father of the
deceased) are entitled to get filial consortium, claimant
Nos. 3 & 4 (daughters) are entitled to get parental
consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each.
22. Considering the above discussion and findings of case
laws and having considered the facts and circumstances of
the present case at hand, the claimants are entitled to get
the compensation as follows:-
Page No.# 12/19
Sl. Heads of claim Tribunal Amount
No. (Rs)
Established Income as per second
Schedule = Rs.8160/- (per annum)
Age - 29 years
1. Compensation as per Second Schedule 97,920/-
(Rs.8160x 18) after 1/3 deduction
2. Filial and parental consortium 1,60,000/-
(Rs. 40,000/- each)
3. Loss of estate 15,000/-
4. Funeral expenditure 15,000/-
Total Compensation=Rs. 2,87,920/-
23. As such the total compensation would come to Rs.
2,87,920/-."
11. Thus, the learned Tribunal having assessed the compensation at Rs.
2,87,920/-, directed the respondent No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to
pay the same .
12. Now, what left to be seen is whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation as submitted by Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants.
13. The question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and
future prospects in a claim petition filed under section 163A has been dealt with
by the High Court of Sikkim in Branch Manager, Shriram general
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dilu Rai And Another, in MAC Appeal
No. 10 of 2028, wherein a division bench of High Court of Sikkim has held as
under:-
"(i) Whether in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the
Page No.# 13/19
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 this Court is to strictly
adhere to the structured formula in the Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as held in the decisions of Sujita
Newar (supra) and Thinlay Chewang Lachenpa (supra) or whether it
can venture beyond the structured formula as held in the
decision of Rita Thapa (supra) for the purposes of
computing compensation in a motor vehicle accident in
which the victim meets fatality?"
14. Thereafter, discussing various precedents, the bench had answered the
reference as under:-
"19. These observations unequivocally clarify that
compensation under Section 163A is based on strict
liability, in other words the requirement of proof of
negligence on the part of the driver is done away with
under Section 163A. So far as reliance on Pranay
Sethi (supra) by Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5
is concerned, we are in agreement with Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Bar Association of Sikkim and
reliance by Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5
on the ratio is a misconception of the law. The ratio
observes inter alia that the determination of income while
computing compensation has to include future prospects so
that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of
just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the M.
V. Act. It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has
clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra
that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the
Page No.# 14/19
M. V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no
fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of
Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary
compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does
not arise. The ratio in R.K. Malik (supra) which adverts to
the decision in Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar
and Others, holds no relevance herein as those matters were
concerned with deaths of minors who were non-earning
members.
20. In light of all the foregoing discussions, we hold that
under Section 163A future prospects or any other additional
non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a
Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act is to be
strictly computed on the structured formula provided in
the Second Schedule to the Act. The reference stands
answered accordingly."
14. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid decision of the High Court of Sikkim,
this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had not
committed any illegality in determining the quantum of compensation on the
basis of Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1988, as amended. Drawing premises
from what has been discussed in Dilu Rai And Another (supra) this court
is also inclined to hold that the appellants herein are not entitled to any relief(s)
which are not provided in the Schedule-II.
16. Thereafter the issue of entitlement in a petition under section 163A of the
M.V. Act, has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. CIVIL
Page No.# 15/19
APPEAL NO.6902 OF 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.5311 of 2019], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. In the judgment in the case of Puttamma & Ors.1,
this Court has observed that the Central Government was
bestowed with the duties to amend Schedule-II in view
of Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, but
it failed to do so. In view of the same, specific
directions were issued to the Central Government to make
appropriate amendments to Schedule-II keeping in mind the
present cost of living. In the said judgment, till such
amendments are made, directions were issued for award of
compensation by fixing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakh only) towards compensation for the non-earning
children up to the age of 5 (five) years old and a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) for
the non- earning persons of more than 5 (five) years old.
13. In the case of R.K. Malik & Anr.2 also, this Court
has observed that the notional income fixed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as Rs.15,000/- per
annum should be enhanced and increased as the same
continued to exist without any amendment since
14.11.1994. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr.3 where the
deceased was a ten years old child, this Court has fixed
his notional income at Rs.30,000/- per annum.
14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was
on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-
Page No.# 16/19
II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income
at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non- earning members is not
just and reasonable.
15. In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma &
Ors.1, R.K. Malik & Anr.2 and Kishan Gopal & Anr.3, we
are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the
notional income by taking into account the inflation,
devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view
of the same, the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh &
Ors.4 relied on by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company would not render any assistance to
the case of the insurance company.
16. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to take
notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when
the notional income is multiplied with applicable
multiplier '15', as prescribed in Schedule-II for the
claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x Multiplier
15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial
consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Thus, the appellants are entitled to the following
amounts towards compensation:
(a) Loss of Dependency : Rs. 3,75,000-00
(b) Filial Consortium : Rs. 80,000-00
Page No.# 17/19
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
(c) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000-00
Total : Rs. 4,70,000-00"
17. Thus, drawing premises from the illuminating discourse, and also
considering the submissions advances at the bar and further considering the
facts and circumstances on the record, an endeavour would be made to assess
the compensation, which the claimants/appellants are entitled to.
18. Here in this case, admittedly the appellants have not exhibited any
documents regarding the income of the deceased. But, a plea was taken that he
was working as a carpenter. Since no document has been produced to
substantiate the income of the deceased, notional income has to be taken. The
learned Tribunal had taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand only) per annum. Having accepted the same as income
of the deceased per annum, I find that the multiplier applicable herein this case,
as per Second Schedule, will be 18, since the age of the deceased at the
relevant time was 29 years. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied
with applicable multiplier '18', as prescribed in Second Schedule, the claims
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.7,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x Multiplier 18) towards loss of dependency. As per Second
Schedule, the deduction towards personal expenses will be 1/3 rd of the said
total income. Thus after deduction of 1/3rd of the amount from Rs.7,20,000/-
the amount will be (7,20,000- 2,40,000= 4,80,000/-). Besides, the appellants
are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium which
would be Rs. 1,60,000/-. The appellants will be entitled to another sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/ for loss of estate. It is a
Page No.# 18/19
fact that in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), no amount was awarded
under this head. But, it was awarded by the learned Tribunal and the
respondents have not objected to the same.
19. Thus, total amount of compensation, which the appellants are entitled to,
is assessed at Rs. 6,70,000/-(Rupees six lacs seventy thousand) only.
The entire assessment is reflected in the chart given below:-
Sl. No. Heads of claims Amount in
(Rs)
01. Loss of dependency:- Income per annum Rs.40,000 x
as per Second Schedule Rs.40,000/- 18 =
(per annum), with multiplier 18 since Rs.7,20,000/-
the age of the deceased was 29 years
1. Compensation as per Second Schedule Rs.7,20,000-
after 1/3 deduction Rs. 2,40,000
= 4,80,000/
2. Filial and parental consortium 1,60,000/-
(Rs. 40,000/- each)
3. Loss of estate 15,000/-
4. Funeral expenditure 15,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,70,000/
-
20. Now, adverting to the rate of interest I find that the learned Tribunal had
awarded the same @7.5% per annum. Although, Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.1 submits that the learned Tribunal had correctly
assessed the rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum, yet Mr. Chauhan, the learned
Page No.# 19/19
counsel for the appellants submits that at least it should have been 9% per
annum. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Chauhan. The
issue of awarding the interest was succinctly dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Municipal Council of Delhi v. Association of Victims
of Uphaar Tragedy reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481. And after discussion of
the issue had awarded interest upon the compensation to the victims of that
case at the rate of 9% p.a. This decision was followed in umpteen cases by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of appeal in MACT cases. In view of the law
laid down in the case of Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra)
this court is inclined to hold that the amount of compensation so assessed
herein this case shall carry interest @ Rs.9% per annum, from the date of claim
petition i.e. 13.10.2017 till realisation.
21. In the result, this appeal succeeds. And accordingly, the same stands
allowed. The amount of compensation, which the appellants are entitled to,
stands modified to the extent indicated herein above. It is provided that the
respondent Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount to the
claimants/appellants, within a period of one month from today, after adjusting
the amounts (if any) already paid by it. Send down the record of the learned
Tribunal forthwith with a copy of this judgment and order. The parties have to
bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
