KUSUM Vs. RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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 and 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 and 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 and Ors. is extracted hereunder: -