Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 604
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Laldaihzauva - Appellant
Versus
Lalnunsangi & Anr. - Respondent
MAC App. No.9 of 2015
Decided On : 01-04-2016
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalfakawma, Adv.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 – Compensation – Appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation paid to the appellant/claimant in the judgment and award - Appellants counsel submits a preferred a claim for the death of his daughter-in-law in a motor vehicular accident - Claimant filed the case against the vehicle owner and the Insurance Company - Written statement and stated amongst others that the accident vehicle was pushed down the cliff by a landslide and rolled down about meters from the main road and the owner nor the driver – Held, Binding precedent for choosing a multiplier for calculating the compensation to be awarded where the claimant is older than the deceased - Tribunal should have taken the multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant, However, in view of the fact that no challenge has been made to the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal in its judgment and award passed by any party, by way of an appeal or cross-objection, this court is not interfering with the choice of the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal - However, the learned Tribunal should keep in mind the fact that the principles governing assessment of compensation with regard to the choice of the multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher, as the same is still a binding precedent till today - Said principle has not been overruled by a larger Bench of the Apex Court till date - Respondent is directed to pay compensation to the appellant – Appeal Allowed.
2. The appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation paid to the appellant/claimant in the judgment and award dated 27.7.2015 passed in MACT Case No.5/2013 by the learned MACT, Aizawl, wherein the claimant was awarded Rs. 4,35,000 along with 9% interest p.a. w.e.f. date of filing the petition.
3. The appellant's counsel submits that the claimant Laldaihzauva s/o Lalkailuaia of Bawngkawn, Aizawl Vengthlang preferred a claim under section 166 of the M.V. Act on 22.11.2013 for the death of his daughter-in-law Vanrokimi 22 years in a motor vehicular accident on 20.7.2012 around 12:00 midnight at Stone Quarry at 2 Kms from Keifang (Champhai Road) .while running towards Aizawl from Champhai and rolled down about 250 .meters from the main road involving vehicle B/R No.MZ01/ E-7105 ZK Travels (Aizawl to Champhai Night Bus). As a result 17 passengers died on the spot and one passenger Steven Lalmuanpuia, 9 years died in the Sub-District Hospital, Saitual on the following day. The deceased Vanrokimi was one of the passengers who died on the spot. The accident vehicle belonged to the respondent No.1 Lalnunsangi w/o Lalrozama of Bawngkawn Chhim Veng which was driven by Johny Zonunmawia (24) s/o of Lungtiawi of Khawbung, an employee of the opposite party. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the New India Assu. Co. Ltd. under policy No.53060431120100000455 with validity from 3.6.2012 to 2.6.2013. The claimant filed the case under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the vehicle owner and the Insurance Company.
The appellant's counsel also submits that the respondent No.2 contested by filing written statement and stated amongst others that the accident vehicle was pushed down the cliff by a landslide and rolled down about 250 meters from the main road and the owner nor the driver could have foreseen such unfortunate incident taking place in spite of taking all possible care and diligence and no negligent driving on the part of the driver.
4. The appellant's counsel submits that even though the evidence of the appellant was to the effect that the deceased Vanrokimi, who was the daughter-in-law of the claimant, was a tailor, the MACT has taken the income of Vanrokimi to be Rs. 3,000 per month, though the income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. The appellant's counsel submits that even if the income of the deceased cannot be proved, the minimum wages applicable as per the notification dated 3.6.2011 issued by the State Government would be attracted to this case. The appellant's counsel submits that as per the notification dated 3.6.2011 issued by the Government of Mizoram, Labour, Employment and Industrial Training Department, the minimum rate of wages for a tailor is Rs. 240 per day. The appellant's counsel submits that even if it is assumed that the deceased Vanrokimi has worked for 25 days in a month, the income of the deceased would have been Rs. 6,000 per month.
5. The appellant's counsel submits that learned MACT has not added the future income prospects of the deceased while computing the compensation payable to the claimant/appellant.
The appellant's counsel also submits that the learned MACT should have added Rs. 1 lakh as loss of estate while computing the compensation amount, but has in fact only added Rs. 2,000. He also submits that for funeral expense, the learned MACT should have given Rs. 50,000 and not Rs. 25,000. The appellant's counsel also submits that the learned MACT should have also awarded Rs. 50,000 for loss of love and affection.
6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that as per the cross-examination of the appellant/claimant, the deceased Vanrokimi used to stitch clothes at her house and did not have her own shop. The evidence of the claimant is to the
