The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari in a case of death by motor vehicle accident, observed the importance of constituting ‘Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals’ by amending Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act so that the appeals challenging the award of a Tribunal could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal in order to curtail the pendency before the High Courts and for speedy disposal of the appeals concerning payment of compensation to the victims of road accident.
Facts and Procedural History
The first appellant is the wife of one Manoj Kumar Biswal and the second and third appellants are their minor sons. Manoj Kumar Biswal died in a motor vehicle accident.
The appellants filed claim petition bearing before the Additional District Judge-cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Talcher (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking compensation on account of his death. The first respondent, owner of the offending truck, filed his written statement denying any negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. Respondent no.2 was the insurer who also filed the written statement opposing the claim petition.
The Tribunal, on appreciation of the materials on record, held that the cause for the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,90,064/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claimants as well as the insurer challenged the award of the Tribunal before the High Court.
The High Court set aside the award and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal again considered the matter and awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,60,000/-. The insurer challenged the award of the Tribunal before the High Court by filing an appeal. In that appeal, the High Court has modified the award of the Tribunal and awarded compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per year from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Hence this appeal.
Contentions made
Appellant- The High Court was not justified in reducing the compensation without assigning any reason. The appellant was earning Rs.15,000/- and was aged about 28 years at the time of his death. The Courts below took his age as 33 years and applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘15’. Moreover, the deceased had a permanent job. The Courts did not award any compensation towards loss of prospects. Even the compensation awarded was not adequate. Relaince was placed on National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Ors.
Respondent- It has supported the judgment of the High Court.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that there was no error with the assessment of the salary as such by the Tribunal, and that no documents were produced in support of the said contention regarding the age of the deceased. But PAN card and the post-mortem report of the deceased showed that he was aged 33 years at the time of his death. They observed that:
“Therefore, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 33 years and multiplier ‘16’ was applied. After deducting ¼ of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under other conventional heads. Thus, a total sum of Rs.22,60,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. However, the High Court, without assigning any reason whatsoever, has modified the award of the Tribunal and has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-.”
Relying on the Pranay Sethi case, it was observed that 40% of the income of the deceased, therefore, must be added towards loss of prospects which came to Rs.11,52,000/-. Thus, the total income of the deceased was Rs.40,32,000/-. The claimants were also entitled to 10% enhancement of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and conventional expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium.
Judgment
The second respondent-Insurer was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.14,01,000/- before the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Case Name: Rasmita Biswal & Ors vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7549 of 2021
Bench: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Krishna Murari
Decided on: 8th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
