Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance ... vs Burra Sathyamma, Mahabubnagar ... on 21 July, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.3216 of 2016
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 15.09.2016, in
MVOP.No.399 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar. For the
sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, who is
respondent No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with costs and interest for the
accident occurred on 21.06.2014 resulting in the death of the
deceased named, Burra Satish.
3. The claimants in the O.P. are the parents of the deceased. It
is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a student aged
about 16 years at the time of accident and used to help the
claimants in agricultural operations and also earn Rs.200/- per day.
As the deceased was a bright student, he would have got
Government job if he had been alive.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimants are
entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with future interest @
9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred this
appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of
deceased as 16 years, inspite of Ex.A-9/SSC certificate of the
deceased, which clearly disclose that the deceased was aged 15
years at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable shall also
be '15' as per the case law in Reshma Kumari & others v.
Madan Mohan & another1. It is further urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant that future prospects cannot be granted in
case of minors, as per the case law in Rajendra Singh v. National
2013 ACJ 1253
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
Insurance Co. Ltd.2. It is further urged by the learned counsel
that a lumpsum amount of Rs.4,70,000/- alone has to be paid to the
minors as per the case law in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali v.
Shyam Kishore Murmu3, and therefore, prayed to set aside the
award passed by the Tribunal and to grant appropriate
compensation to the claimants.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants
contended that the case law in Kurvan Ansari (3 supra) cannot be
applied as the claim petition as the present case is filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas, the claim petition
in aforesaid judgment was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
8. The only point involved in this case is with respect to the
quantum of compensation granted to the claimants. Therefore, the
other aspects need not be gone into.
9. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the
annual income of the deceased was taken as Rs.30,000/- and as the
2020 ACJ 2211
Civil Appeal No.6902 of 2021, dt.16.11.2021
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
age of the mother of the deceased was 35 years, multiplier 16 was
applied and accordingly the Tribunal granted compensation under
following heads:
1. Loss of dependency (Rs.30,000X16) Rs.4,80,000/-
2. Love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.6,00,000/-
10. In Reshma Kumari's case (1 supra), their Lordships, while
considering the question as to whether Second Schedule to 1988
Act can be made applicable in deciding the application for
compensation made under Section 166 of M.V.Act or not, held as
under :
"A three-Judge Bench in Supe Dei (Smt) and others
v. National Insurance Company Limited and
another[14] [Civil Appeal No. 2753 of 2002;
decided on April 16, 2002] considered the question,
whether Second Schedule to the 1988 Act can be
made applicable in deciding the application for
compensation made under Section 166 or not ? This
Court held that the Second Schedule under Section
163A of the 1988 Act which gives the amount of
compensation to be determined for the purpose of
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
claim under that Section can be taken as a guideline
while determining the compensation under Section
166 of the 1988 Act. The Second Schedule in terms
does not apply to a claim made under Section 166 of
the 1988 Act.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patrica Jean
Mahajan & others4, this Court had an occasion to
consider Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act.
With regard to Section 163A, the Court stated, "the
noticeable features of this provision are that it
provides for compensation in the case of death or
permanent disablement due to accident arising out of
use of motor vehicle. The amount of compensation
would be as indicated in the Second Schedule. The
claimant is not required to plead or establish that the
death or permanent disablement was due to any
wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of
the vehicle or any other person."
Further, the Court observed that a claim under Section 166 did not
provide for amount of compensation according to the Second
Schedule, rather Section 168 makes it clear that it is for the
Appeal (civil) 3655-58 of 2002, dt.08.07.2002
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
Tribunal to arrive at the amount of compensation which it may
consider to be just in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Their Lordships have also dealt with regard to the multipliers
to be applied in case of minors and held that if the claim is made in
respect of minors upto the age of 15, the multiplier '15' has to be
applied and for the persons who are aged above 15 years, the
multiplier table formulated in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & another5 is to be applied while
calculating the compensation. Their Lordships have also held that
in case where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective
of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim of
compensation has to be made, multiplier '15' and assessment as
indicated in II Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in
Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma's case (5 supra) should be
followed. It is further held that while considering the claim
applications made under Section 166 of M.V. Act in death cases
where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
necessity for the claims Tribunal to seek guidance or placing
reliance on the II Schedule under 1988 Act.
12. As per the above said ratio, if the claim is made by the party
under Section 166 of M.V.Act, it is for the Tribunal to arrive at
appropriate compensation after duly considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in case of the claim under Section
163-A, Courts need not look into the aspect of wrongful act or
negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle.
13. In the present case, the age of the deceased is 15 years and
as per Kurvan Ansari's case (3 supra), lumpsum amount of
Rs.4,70,000/- can be awarded and no difference can be made
whether it is a claim under Section 166 or 163-A of M.V. Act.
Admittedly, as per Rajendra Singh's case (2 supra), minor child is
not entitled for compensation under the head 'future prospects'.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the
compensation from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/- with costs and
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
the date of realization, payable by appellant and the 3rd respondent
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3216 of 2016
jointly and severally, within two months from the date of receipt of
this order. Both the claimants are equally entitled to the said
amount and they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares
as the accident occurred in the year 2014.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 21.07.2022
ajr
