IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for fatal accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act must follow the structured formula in the Second Schedule, with recent amendments not applying retrospectively.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award, dated 19.06.2021, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2079/2017.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award, dated 19.06.2021, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’, for short) No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, had directed the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,87,920/- only, with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 13.10.2017, till its realization.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

“The appellants herein as claimants, filed a claim petition, being MAC Case No. 2079/2017, before the learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, claiming compensation on account of death of one Calvin Lalrochung in a motor accident. The accident took place on 01.01.2013, at about 11:30 p.m. while one recovery van, bearing Registration No. MZ-01-C-3869, being driven by one Harilal Ravidas, in a negligent manner towards Kolasib from Silchar and ran over said Calvin Lalrochung, resulting in his death on the spot. Deceased Calvin Lalrochung was the only son of the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire family members were dependent upon him and therefore, claimant Nos. 1 and 2, being the parents and claimants No. 3 and 4, being the minor daughters of the deceased, filed the claim petition, and that the deceased was carpenter by profession and his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- per month and in respect of the said accident, Kolasib P.S. Case No. 1/2013, under Sections 279/304A/337/427 of the IPC, had been registered. Upon the said claim petition, the learned Member, MACT No. 3 had issued notice to the respondents, who entered appearance and filed their written statements and thereafter, hearing the learned Advocates of both the parties, the learned Member, MACT No. 3 had allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay compensation as aforesaid.”

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court on the following grounds:

(i) That, there is an error in assessment of the compensation and the learned Member, MACT No. 3 had arrived at a wrong finding in respect of the quantum of compensation.

(ii) That, the learned member MACT No. 3, Guwahati had assessed the compensation as per Second Schedule and held that as per Second Schedule, compensation for third party fatal accidents, within the age group above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years, is fixed at Rs. 680/- per annum. But, as per the Second Schedule Rs.680/ has to be counted in thousand.

(iii) That, deduction of one-third is wrong as there are four claimants, namely, father, mother, two minor daughters, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, it ought to have been one-fourth.

(iv) That, the learned Member, MACT No. 3 had wrongly decided the issue No. 2 and determined the quantum @ Rs. 97,920/- and also committed grave error in law, while assessing compensation as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended.

6. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the grounds mentioned herein above and submits that even assessing the compensation as per Second Schedule, in case of third party fatal accidents, within the age group above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years, which is fixed at Rs. 680/- per annum, ought to have been counted in thousand not as Rs. 680/- only and the same has been clearly indicated in the Schedule itself. Further Mr. Chauhan submits that the deceased left behind four dependent family members, and as such i