The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Sulaiman & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 448 of 2011 ---------------------OPMV.2068/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE DULY AUTHORISEDD SIGNATORY, (R. SUIKUMMANAN NAIR, MANAGER), REGIONAL OFFICE KANDOMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD,KOCHI-682011. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------1.V.K. SULAIMAN, KALLUPURACKAL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU VADAYAR, VAIKOM, PIN 686 605. 2. AYSHA, W/O. V.K. SULAIMAN, -DO -DO- 3. VASU, KORALAMPARAL, ERUMOOR VILLAGE KUTHIRPPARA BHAGOM, ALATHOOR PALAKKAD 678 541. 4. M. SURUESH, TANK ROAD, SIVANANDA COLONY COIMBATORE 641 012. - DELETED. RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS DELETEDD FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER VIDE ORDER DATD 6/7/1 IN MACA 448/2011. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ==============================** ## **M.A.C.A. NO. 448 OF 2011 ============================** ## **Dated this the 25th day of August 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Basant, J.** The insurer is the appellant. The claimants/respondents are parents of a young unmarried man, aged 26 years, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 1/6/2002. He succumbed to the injuries later after some period of treatment. The claimants/parents staked claim for compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of total amount of Rs.4,27,500/- as per the details given in paragraph 16 which we extract below: |**_sl.No._**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount awarded_**|**_Basis vital details_**<br>**_ins a nut shell_**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Funeral expenses|Rs.2,000/-|Nominal amount| |2|Loss of estate|Rs.2,500/-|-do-| MACA 448/2011 2 |**_sl.No._**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount awarded_**|**_Basis vital details_**<br>**_ins a nut shell_**| |---|---|---|---| |3|Medical expenses|Rs.15,000/-|As per Section 163<br>A of M.V.Act.| |4|Loss of dependency|Rs.4,08,000/-|24000x<br>17=4,08,000/-| |5|Los of income|Not allowed|Loss of dependency<br>granted| |6|Transport to hospital|Not allowed|Not in the II<br>schedule of M.V.Act| |7|Damage to clothing and<br>articles||..do...| |8|Bystander expenses|do|do| |9|Miscellaneous expenses|do|do| |10|Pain and suffering|do|do| |11|Loss of love and affection<br>Total|nil|do<br>Rs.4,27,500/-<br>============| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. The respondents though served, there is no appearance for any of them. 3. The challenge is raised on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel for the MACA 448/2011 3 appellant assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is excessive. 4. Counsel submits that monthly income reckoned as Rs.3000/- is excessive. The deceased claimed to be a businessman running a stationary business. The claimants had initially asserted that his monthly income was Rs.5000/-. Later the claim was amended and the monthly income was claimed to be Rs.3000/-. The Tribunal accepted the assertion that his monthly income was Rs.3000/-. Loss of dependency was calculated adopting the multiplier multiplicand method (3000x12x2/3x17). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income reckoned is excessive. No better evidence is placed before court by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. We have only the assertion of the claimants about the income of the deceased. The short question is whether we must interfere MACA 448/2011 4 with the quantum of monthly income accepted by the Tribunal. 6. We must take note of Clause 6 of the 2[nd] Schedule which permits the Tribunal to draw the inference of prudence that even a non earning person can be assumed to earn Rs.1,250/- per mensem. The presumption permitted in 1994 continues without updation even now. We must also alertly be cognisant of the decision of the Supreme Court in **Lata Wadhwa & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, [A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3218]** which permits the Tribunal to assume that even a non-earning home maker/house wife can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. We do take note of the decision in **Laxmi Devi v, Mohammad Tabbar[2008 A.C.J.1488]** which permits the courts to assume that even an unskilled worker can easily earn an amount of Rs.100/- per day and the monthly income of such a person can be assumed to be Rs.3000/-. In the light of the MACA 448/2011 5 above circumstances, we are certainly not persuaded to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal about the probable monthly income. At any rate, invoking our jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Act, we are not persuaded to interfere with the said finding of fact by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that 17 was incorrectly reckoned by the Tribunal as the multiplier applicable. That is certainly the multiplier that can be adopted taking the age of the deceased into account, i.e. 26 years. But the learned counsel contends that considering the age of the parents of the deceased (who were aged 68 years and 60 years) into consideration, the Tribunal could not have adopted any multiplier above 7. The quantum of compensation awarded now has no nexus with the actual dependency or loss suffered by the claimants. In these circumstances, the quantum of MACA 448/2011 6 compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency deserves to be modified and reduced, argues the learned counsel. 8. We are afraid the argument stems out an incorrect comprehension of the nature of liability that is created under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. P.C.Chacko & Others [2011(3)KHC 438]** , the question has been considered in detail. Section 163 A creates a distinct, separate and absolute statutory liability. Actual loss is irrelevant in a claim under Section 163 A. Section 163 A is a scheme envisaged by the legislature for comprehensive final settlement of claims for compensation adopting the formula prescribed in the 2[nd] Schedule to ensure rough and ready justice. The question has been adverted in detail in **P.C.Chacko(supra)** . We do not think it necessary to repeat the discussion in **P.C.Chacko(supra).** MACA 448/2011 7 9. The Tribunal ascertained the amount of Rs.4, 08,000/- by adopting the multiplier multiplicand method (3000x12x2/3x17). This was actually unnecessary. In a claim under Section 163A, the Tribunal is not expected to resort to the multiplier multiplicand method. As it has been repeated in many other cases including **P.C.Chacko (supra),** it appears to be evident that in a claim under Section 163 A, the correct horizontal column(X axis) depending on the age range of the victim and the correct vertical column ( Y axis)– depending upon the income range of the deceased alone need be ascertained. At the point where the horizontal column (X axis and the vertical column (Y axis) meet the table/chart gives “rupees in thousands”, that is payable as compensation in the case of death. The Tribunals are not expected to independently choose the multiplier and the multiplicand and arrive at the figure by employing the multiplier multiplicand method. The 4[th] horizontal column relates to the deceased persons aged MACA 448/2011 8 above 25 years who have not completed 30 years. Similarly, 12[th] vertical column deals with persons who have an annual income upto Rs.36,000/-. These columns/axes meet and there the amount payable in “rupees in thousands” is given and 612 is the figure (which means that Rs.6,12,000/-) is the gross amount payable shown there. Going by the note below the schedule, 1/3[rd] of the amount has to be reduced in consideration of the personal expenses of the deceased victim. That gives the Tribunal the compensation that is payable. The amount payable is 612000x2/3= 4,08,000/-. 10. In this case by following the multiplier multiplicand method also, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Rs.4,08,000/- is the amount payable . Employment of that method was totally unnecessary. But the quantum is the same. Therefore, though the Tribunal does not appear to have followed the correct method, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of MACA 448/2011 9 dependency is absolutely correct. Further, the Tribunal had awarded the amounts payable under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate and medical expenses in accordance with clause 3 of the 2[nd] schedule. Bills far in excess of Rs.15,000/- were produced by the claimants. 11. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the Tribunal has committed no error in awarding an amount of Rs.4,27,500/- as compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are satisfied that the impugned award does not warrant any interference at the instance of the appellant. 12. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ks. M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE