Kesharaju Sujatha, Warangal 4 ... vs P Rajaiah, Warangal 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5 Tel

     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

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

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

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

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

AIR 2017 SC 5710

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

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

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.

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

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

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