Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Indira Banerjee, Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, JJ.
Sri Sunil Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Respondent
F.M.A. 617 of 2013
Decided On : 25-06-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Afroze Alam, Advocate
The notional income of a non-earning spouse under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be deemed to be the higher of 1/3rd of the income of the earning surviving spouse or Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 163A - LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 163A - NO FAULT LIABILITY - COMPENSATION TO VICTIM'S HEIRS - NO NEED TO PROVE WRONGFUL ACT OR NEGLECT - NOTIONAL INCOME OF NON-EARNING VICTIM - RS. 15,000/- PER ANNUM - SPOUSE'S INCOME DEEMED 1/3RD OF EARNING SPOUSE OR RS. 15,000/- WHICHEVER HIGHER - COMPENSATION TO NON-EARNING HOUSEWIFE - RS. 1,95,000/- PLUS FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE - ADDITIONAL RS. 5,000/- TO HUSBAND FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM.
Fact of the Case:
A housewife, Purnima Ghosh, died in an accident involving a vehicle insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants, her husband and son, filed a claim for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 9,500/- as compensation, holding that the deceased had no income and neither of the claimants was dependent on her.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in overlooking paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for a notional income of Rs. 15,000/- in case of a victim who had no income prior to the accident. The Court held that the notional income of a non-earning spouse should be deemed to be the higher of 1/3rd of the income of the earning surviving spouse or Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased/victim was entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite being a housewife with no income? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in overlooking paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act arises notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, including the law relating to damages and/or law relating to compensation. The heirs of a victim killed in a motor accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be entitled compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule of the said Act. The Court further held that the notional income of a non-earning spouse should be deemed to be the higher of 1/3rd of the income of the earning surviving spouse or Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award. The Court directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 1,99,500/- to the claimants, in addition to Rs. 5,000/- payable to the claimant husband towards loss of consortium. The amount was to carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till full disbursement to the claimants.
1. This appeal is against Judgment and Award dated 29th February, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 9th Court, Alipore in an application for compensation filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the accidental death of late Purnima Ghosh, in course of use of a vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-03/5073 owned by the respondent no.2 and covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the respondent no.1/National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent/insurer).
2. By the judgment and award impugned, the learned Tribunal awarded the claimants/appellants compensation of only Rs. 9,500/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium observing that compensation of Rs. 9,500/- was just, proper, adequate and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that since the deceased victim was, during her lifetime, a housewife with no income and neither of the appellants was dependent on her, the claimants/appellants would not be entitled to any compensation except for statutory compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate.
The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
"1. Is the claim case maintainable in its present form?
2. Did the accident occur due to the fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-03/5073 on 19.07.2005?
3. Whether the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-03/5073 was under the valid insurance coverage of the National Insurance Co. Ltd.?
4. Are the claimants entitled to get any compensation as prayed for?
5. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, are the petitioners entitled? "
4. The learned Tribunal dealt with all the aforesaid issues together for the sake of brevity and convenience. In our view Issue No.2 i.e. the issue of whether the accident occurred due to the fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. WB-03/5073 was not relevant in an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act which is based on no fault liability.
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia provides:
"[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule]."
5. The liability under Section 163A arises notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having force of law. In other words notwithstanding any contract and notwithstanding any other law including the law relating to damages and/or law relating to compensation the heirs of a victim killed in a motor accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle would be entitled compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule of the said Act.
6. The learned Tribunal completely overlooked
