The court clarified the maintainability of claim petitions under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the liability of insurance companies for compensation to gratuitous passengers, and the application of the multiplier in compensation calculation.

H. Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lallianzuala Sailo, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. This present appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Zarkawt Aizawl against the judgment and award dated 2.2.05, passed in MACT Case No. 74/03 by the Ld. Member, MACT, Aizawl Under Section 173of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. By this appeal, the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks for setting aside and/or modification of the final award and order dated 2.2.05.

3. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Thanmawii is the claimant in MACT Case No. 74/03 and she is the mother of the deceased Lalbiaktluanga aged about 46 years. Respondent No. 2 herein is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AMZ-2459 (Tata 1210). On 28.4.03 deceased Lalbiaktluanga, while was travelling in the offending vehicle met with an accident at about 8.00 A. M. near Hunthar Veng Aizawl as a result of which the deceased died. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Police registered a case being Bawngkawn P.S. Case No. 317/03 Under Section 279/337/338/427/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said offending vehicle.

4. The respondent No. 1 herein on the death of her son in the said accident filed a claim petition before the MACT Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation to her. On filing of the claim petition this present appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle and the owner of the offending vehicle contested the case, in other words, claim by filing written statement.

5. The learned tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of either party framed two issues as under:

1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and if so, who is liable to pay the compensation and to what extent?

6. The inquiry commenced and at the conclusion of the enquiry the learned tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant (respondent No. 1) to the tune of Rs.5,32,000/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization of the whole amount.

7. The Oriental Insurance Company, the present appellant who had been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in MACT Case No. 74/03 being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the award filed this instant appeal challenging its legality.

8. During the enquiry the respondent No. 1 in support of her claim put herself into the witness box and proved some documents which have been marked as exhibit C/1 & C/14.

9. During the course of argument Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the appellant raised the following issues to be decided by this Court:

(i) Whether the claim petition Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 is maintainable in view of the income proved by the claimant-respondent No. 1.

(ii) Whether the appellant is liable to make any compensation when the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and;

(iii) Whether the learned tribunal was correct in applying the multiplier in the calculation of the income of the deceased.

10. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under the provisions of Section 163A of the M.V. Act. The second scheduled of the M.V. Act is provided for the purpose of calculation of compensation to the claimant on the basis of the annual income either of the deceased or the injured at Rs. 40,000/-. It is submitted by Mr. Meitei that the learned tribunal held the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and in that calculation, the annual income of the deceased would be at Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, the provisions so incorporated in second scheduled of the M.V. Act would not be applicable in the present case. Where the income of the deceased or injured is Rs. 40,000/- or less then an application Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is maintainable. From the judgment itself it is found that the learned tribunal held the income