Back
2010 Supreme(Gau) 812
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Madan B.Lokur, J.
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. -Appellant
Versus
Lalthlanawma & Ors. -Resopndent
Mac Appeal Nos. 27 & 29 of 2009
Decided On : 01-11-2010
Advocate appeared for the Appellants:Mr.A.R.Malhotra, Advocate appeared for the Respondents: Mr.Zochhuana
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident Claims – claim of compensation - Claimant before Tribunal is minor son aged about twenty nine years - She died as a result of an accident and claim was preferred by her minor son through his next friend and guardian that is maternal grandfather - Deceased was working in Public Works Department of Government of Mizoram as a Muster Roll Worker on a monthly salary - On basis of evidence on record and applying guidelines laid down in 2nd Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation - Pecuniary damages were assessed and non-pecuniary damages were assessed - Basis of arriving at pecuniary damages was that income of deceased was taken as per month and multiplier applied – Held, Claimants grandfather is granted liberty to apply for withdrawal of compensation in case of an emergency - To meet with such a contingency MACT may invest awarded amount in more than one fixed deposit - As directed by Supreme Court in T. N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs no loan advance of any kind and for premature encashment shall be permitted in respect of fixed deposits except on an application made to MACT - If MACT is satisfied about urgency of any need and absence of financial resources to meet any urgent financial need it may permit a loan or advance or premature encashment by a reasoned order - MACT will make above guidelines into account and invest as much of awarded amount as it thinks reasonable in several deposits yielding adequate returns permitting withdrawal of interest periodically to be used for maintenance and upkeep of Claimant - MACT will make appropriate orders within days from date of deposit of balance as above to be made by appellant - Appeals disposed of
Both these appeals arise out an Award dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 55/06.
2. The Claimant before the Tribunal is the minor son of Smti. Malsawmkima, aged about 29 years. She died as a result of an accident and the claim was preferred by her minor son through his next friend and guardian, that is the maternal grandfather.
3. The deceased was working in the Public Works Department of the Government of Mizoram as a Muster Roll Worker on a monthly salary of Rs. 4186/-.
4. On the basis of the evidence on record and applying the guidelines laid down in the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 9,98,380/-. The pecuniary damages were assessed at Rs. 8,98,380/- and the non-pecuniary damages were assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The basis of arriving at the pecuniary damages was that the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 4991/- per month and the multiplier applied was 15.
5. Out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deducted against the interim Award already made in favour of the Claimant. The total amount due and payable to the Claimant was, therefore, Rs. 9,48,380/-.
6. The first objection taken by learned counsel for the appellant to the Award made by the MACT is that a deduction of one third (1/3rd) has not been made towards expenses of the deceased and the second objection is that there is no basis for arriving at non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-
7. In support of his first contention, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. One of the questions framed by the Supreme Court for its consideration was:
"Whether the determination towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be less than one fourth (¼th) as contended by the appellant or should be one third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents?"
Answering this question, the Supreme Court laid down in paragraph 25 to 32 of the Report that normally one third (1/3rd) of the income ought to be kept out of purview for the purposes of awarding compensation because this amount could be treated as personal expenses of the deceased.
8. As is seen from the Award made by the learned MACT in the present case, no deduction has been made towards the personal, living expenses of the deceased. If this deduction of 1/3rd is made in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma the amount of pecuniary damages would come to Rs. 4991 x 12 x 15 x 2/3 = Rs. 5,98,920/- or Rs. 6,00,000/-(rounded off).
9. Insofar as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the MACT has given absolutely no reason for arriving at a figure of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Going by the guidelines laid down in the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the Claimant would be entitled to funeral expenses @ Rs. 2,000/-, loss of estate @ Rs. 25007- and medical expenses incurred before death @ Rs. 15,000/-. Thus the total amount would be Rs. 19,5007- as per the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. Considering the fact that the amounts mentioned in the 2nd Schedule were fixed way back in 1988 and since the cost of living has increased over the last more that 20 years, it would be appropriate to double this amount to Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, towards non-pecuniary damages, I award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the Claimant, instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
11. The total Award, therefore, would come to Rs. 6,45,000/-. Out of this an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the Claimant. Therefore, the sum due to the Claimant would be Rs. 5,95,000/-.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the interest awarded at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment is made, is excessive since the bank rate as determined by the Reserve Bank of India is about 7% per annum. This is not disputed by learned counsel for the Claimant.
13. Under the circumstance
