ANTHONIYAMMA W O J RAJAPPAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 7 year old child died in a motor accident. Father and mother of the child approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala for compensation. Even though Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, driver of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, against a claim of Rs. 3,20,000/- only an amount of Rs. 74,600/- was allowed. The dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. It is contended that the child was a student. If compensation was awarded under Section 163A even without proving the negligence of the driver, the claimant will be entitled to a compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs. Based upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer,2003 1 KLT 137 it was argued that quantum of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the M.V. Act ) can never Section 163-A of M.V. Act because in claims under Section 163-A, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be proved. Therefore, it was argued that compensation that should be awarded when negligence proved should be higher. We can award compensation only on the basis of settled legal principles of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the formula fixed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act can be taken only as a guideline while assessing compensation under Section.

(2.) Claims under Sections 166 and 163-A are totally independent. Under Section 163-A, if age and income at the time of the accident is determined, the compensation is fixed in the case of fatal accidents as mentioned in the second schedule. If there is only permanent disability, taking the multiplier fixed for the age group, income of the deceased and percentage of permanent disability, compensation can be calculated taking second schedule as a ready reckoner. In case of non-earing persons Rs. 15,000/= is fixed as national income. See Deepal Girishai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934. But, when claims are filed under Section 166, entire matter including effect in further prospects etc. have to be considered by the Tribunal for granting compensation. It was further argued that in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 8 SCC 197, the Hon ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 1,50,000/ = as compensation apart from the general damages of Rs. 50,000/= for children aged between 5 and 10 years. For children aged between 10 to 15 years, compensation has to be calculated taking annual contribution as Rs. 24,000/- and a multiplier of 15, apart from the general damages of Rs. 50,000/-. The counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal and Anr. v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors.,2001 5 SCC 151 wherein it was held that multiplier method as adopted in motor accident claims cases can be applied in similar claims as was held in Lata Wadhwa s case (supra) and Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded to the parents of deceased school student was not interfered by the Supreme Court.

(3.) It is settled law that 2nd schedule can be taken for guidance for awarding compensation. A three member bench of the Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.,2002 JT Suppl1 SC 451, held that though the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act is framed for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 163-A, it serves as a guideline for determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act also. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Anr., 2003 3 SCC 148, it was held that structured formula mentioned in the second schedule gives guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act also. In A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M. Pentaiah Chary, 2007 AIR(SCW) 5689, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that except in exceptional circumstances, second schedule should be followed in awarding compensation.