Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Fatal accident – Compensation – Victim-deceased aged 33 years died in motor accident – Evidence on record that he was working as supervisor and his monthly salary was Rs.15,000 – Tribunal adopted multiplier ‘16’ and after deducting one-fourth of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, 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 – However, High Court, without assigning any reason modified the award of the Tribunal and awarded a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- – Held: As per PAN card, the age of deceased at the time of accident was 33 years – Since it was established that the deceased was 33 years at the time of his death and earning Rs.15000 per month, application of multiplier of ‘16’ by the Tribunal was proper – The annual salary of the deceased would be Rs.1,80,000/- and taking multiplied of ‘16’ becomes Rs.28,80,000/- – In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench of this Court held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be awarded where the deceased was below the age of 40 years – Therefore, after adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects, total income of the deceased comes to Rs.40,32,000/- – One-fourth of the income i.e. 10,08,000/- deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as he left behind three dependants – Total amount payable to the claimants towards loss of dependency was Rs.30,24,000/-.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Judicial notice – Large number of appeals filed under s.173 are pending before the various High Courts – 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, the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice is requested to consider constituting ‘Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals’ by amending s.173 so that the appeals challenging the award of a Tribunal could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal so constituted – To ensure access to justice and to avoid pendency, it would also be proper to consider setting up Benches of the Appellate Tribunal in various regional cities, in addition to the capital city of each State as may be indicated by the relevant High Court and no further appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal be provided – The Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice is requested to examine the same. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased was working as supervisor under PW-3. Certificate issued by PW-3 shows that the deceased was a supervisor in the organisation of PW-3 and his salary was Rs.15,000/- per month. PAN card of the deceased showed that he was aged 33 years at the time of his death. Even the postmortem report of the deceased suggested the same. 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. However, the High Court, without assigning any reason whatsoever, modified the award of the Tribunal and has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-. Since it was established that the deceased was 33 years at the time of his death, application of multiplier of ‘16’ by the Tribunal was proper. The annual salary of the deceased comes to Rs.1,80,000/- which on multiplying by ‘16’ comes to Rs.28,80,000/-. 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased is Rs.40,32,000/-. One-fourth of the income i.e. 10,08,000/- is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as he has left behind three dependants. Therefore, the total amount payable to the claimants towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,24,000/-. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15][437-C, E-G; 438-D; 438-G-H]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
3. It is noticed that a large number of claim petitions, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are being filed before the various Claims Tribunals established thereunder throughout the country. Against the awards of the Tribunals, appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the relevant High Court, either by the claimants or by the insurers and owners of the offending vehicles. Large number of such appeals are pending before the various High Courts. Having regard to that 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, it is just and proper to consider 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 so constituted. The Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, is requested to examine this matter. [Paras 19, 20][439-F-H; 440-A, C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.