Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Reshmi Devi @ Reshama Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata. – Respondents
FMA No. 2207 of 2016
Decided on : 08-08-2024
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Section 163A M.V. Act - The court interpreted Section 163A of the M.V. Act, emphasizing the structured formula for compensation, and determined the claimants' entitlement to compensation based on notional income and the new schedule post-amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, legal heirs of a deceased cobbler, sought compensation for his death in a motor vehicle accident caused by reckless driving of a police vehicle. They claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- but were awarded Rs. 1,59,500/- by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, and despite the tribunal's earlier award, they were eligible for a higher amount based on the new schedule post-amendment.
Issues: Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act following the amendment and the applicability of the new schedule to their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new schedule for compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act applies to pending claims, ensuring claimants receive benefits from legislative amendments.
Result: The claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 3,40,500/- along with interest.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants against the Award passed on March 15, 2013 by Ld. Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, being M.A.C. Tribunal in M.A.C.C. No. 80 of 2012, under Section 163A M.V. Act.
2. FACTS :-
The victim was taken to S.S.K.M. Hospital where he expired soon after his admission. It is alleged that the sole cause of the said motor vehicle accident was the reckless driving of the police vehicle by its driver. It is alleged that as a result of the unfortunate death of victim, the petitioners have not only been suffering from financial loss but also seriously affected by mental pain and agony and they will have to suffer the same throughout their life. For all these reasons the petitioner/claimant side has prayed before this court for awarding compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh) with other benefit and interest.”
3. The O.P. contested this claim case by filing written statement, where they have denied all the material allegations which have been depicted in the claim petition. The specific case of the O.P. which emerged from the written statement in a nutshell is that this claim case is not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of the law and it has been filed by the petitioners by suppressing material facts in order to achieve wrongful gain. It is also pointed out by the O.P. that the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to try this case and the petitioners are not the actual claimants. It was further stated that the victim was solely responsible for the accident and for that reason the opposite party is not responsible to pay any compensation.
4. The Claimants examined two witnesses and proved relevant documents which were marked as exhibits.
5. The opposite party did not examine any witness.
6. The tribunal finally held as follows :-
| “M.A.C.C. No. 80 of 2012 Dated: 15.03.2013 From the evidence on record it appears that the petitioner was aged about 44 years which indicates that multiplier would be 15. Now the petitioner side has claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,300/- p.m. but fact remains that no satisfactory document has been produced and proved by the petitioner side to prove the income. On the point of income the P.W. 2 has supported the case of the petitioner but the P.W.2 is not the competent authority for ascertaining the income of the victim. Under this position this court has no other way but to accept the principle of notional income. The petitioner/claimant side in the matter of assessment of compensation has referred the case laws 2009(II) ACJ 1298(SC), 2009(2) TAC Page 677 (SC), 2011 WBLR (3) Page 453 (Cal), 2007 WBLR (1) Page 596(Cal) and 2012 (1) TAC page 12 (SC). But fact remains that the argument highlighted by the petitioner side on this point and the case laws referred by the petitioner side are not applicable in this instant case as the fact and circumstances of this case is otherwise different. So the amount of compensation which the petitioner side is entitled to get in this claim case would be Rs. 15,000/- X 15 – 1/3rd of the said amount = Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only). In addition to the said amount the petitioner/claimant |
The amendment to Section 163A of the M.V. Act allows claimants to benefit from enhanced compensation structures, applicable to pending claims.
Compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act does not require proof of negligence, and structured compensation formulas must be applied to ensure fair awards to claimants.
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act allows claimants to receive enhanced compensation for accidents occurring before the amendment date.
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to pending claims, ensuring claimants receive the benefits of the new compensation schedule.
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applies to pending claims, allowing claimants to receive enhanced compensation based on the new structured formula.
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act allows for enhanced compensation for fatal accidents, applicable to pending claims.
The amendment to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act allows for enhanced compensation for claims pending as of the amendment date, reflecting the law's intent to benefit claimants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
