Back
High Court of Kerala
R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thazhepalam, Tirur
Versus
M. Madhavan & Others
MACA.No. 1763 of 2009
Decided on : 13-07-2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.166, S.163A - Accident claim- Insurer is the appellant. Compensation is claimed by the claimants for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son, a young person, aged about 14 years. Father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The claim was initially staked under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was a passenger in a taxi jeep. The appellant is the insurer in respect of that vehicle. The claim was staked against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling as also the driver and owner of another vehicle which was also involved in the accident - Held, it would be absolutely reasonable to assume that the legislature, in its anxiety to eliminate unnecessary and avoidable litigation on the quantum of actual income, wanted to prescribe ranges so that a lot of unnecessary dispute about the precise and actual income can be avoided. That is why the same amount of compensation is prescribed for all persons earning upto an amount of Rs. 3,000/- - When the legislature prescribed amounts under various columns specifying the income, it could only have meant that those getting income upto to the figure speciffed will all get the same compensation. We do note that the anxiety of the legislature to avoid unnecessary and needless litigation can be clearly disciphered when we reckon the income as ranges of income and not any specified income. So understood, we accept that it will be appropriate to reckon the same compensation to be payable for all belonging to a particular income group - Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - (!) The Tribunal erred by using a multiplier to compute fatal accident compensation under Section 163A; compensation must be determined from the Second Schedule table/chart by horizontal age group and vertical income column, with 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. - (!) For a fatal accident involving a young deceased, the Court held that the multiplier is irrelevant for Section 163A fatal-accident claims, and the correct approach is the table/chart-based calculation. - (!) Section 163A creates absolute liability payable to legal heirs or victims, based on the structured formula in the Second Schedule; the schedule is essential for operation. - (!) A claimant may convert a Section 166 claim to Section 163A and vice versa; option to press under either section exists until an award is passed, per the cited SC decisions. - (!) In cases with two vehicles, claimants may choose to sue against the owner/insurer of either or both vehicles under Section 163A; non-impleadment of other vehicle’s owner/insurer does not invalidate the claim. - (!) The purpose of Section 163A is to avoid litigation and provide ready compensation by using ranges of income and age; the schedule prescribes uniform compensation within each group. - (!) For income up to Rs. 3,000, and other ranges, the schedule provides corresponding fixed compensation amounts; the note clarifies the ranges concept. - (!) - (!) The court clarifies that the "multiplier" in the schedule is not applicable to fatal accidents under Section 163A; the compensation must be taken from the chart and then reduced by 1/3.
Basant, J.
This appeal comes up for admission now. The respondents/claimants are served. The insurer is the appellant. Compensation is claimed by the claimants for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son, a young person, aged about 14 years. Father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The claim was initially staked under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was a passenger in a taxi jeep. The appellant is the insurer in respect of that vehicle. The claim was staked against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling as also the driver and owner of another vehicle which was also involved in the accident.
2. As stated earlier, the claim was initially lodged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the course of the proceedings - evidently after realising that the other vehicle involved in the accident was not covered by a valid policy of insurance, the claimants prayed that driver and owner of the other vehicle may be deleted from the party array. They were accordingly deleted. A request was made that the claim may be reckoned as one under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. That request was allowed by the Tribunal and the claim was considered as one under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,29,500/- as per the details shown below:
i) Compensation for fatal accident (under entry 1 of second schedule) (15,000 X 15) ii) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000.00 iii) Loss of estate Rs. 2,500.00 Total Rs.2,29,500.00 Rs.2,25,000.00
3. The insurer challenges the award. It is first of all contended that alteration of a claim from Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the deletion of the driver and owner of the other vehicle from the party array was ill conceived. The claimants cannot be assumed to have such a discretion to delete the owner and driver of the other vehicle from the array of parties. Merely because the other vehicle had not been insured, the appellant herein should not have been mulcted with the entire liability under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is urged.
4. The right of the claimant to request that his claim lodged initially under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act may be converted and treated as one under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot possibly be doubted. If there be any doubt on that aspect, the last trace of such doubt must be held to have been set at rest by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi (SC) [2011 (1) KLT 617 (SC)]. That decision is authority for the proposition that until an award is passed either under Section 166 or under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has the right to request that his claim may be considered under either of the two Sections. That decision refers to the earlier decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2004 (2) KLT 395 SC]. It is clarified that Deepal Girishbhai Soni does not fetter the option of the claimant who chooses to press the claim either under Section 166 or under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act if the claim under the other section has not been decided and ordered earlier.
5. Therefore it is crystal clear that the exercise of option by the claimants to reckon their claim as one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is absolutely justified. That conversion of the claim cannot possibly be faulted.
6. The next question is whether in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver, owner and insurer (if any) of the other vehicle involved in the accident are necessary parties and whether the non impleadment of such driver, owner and insurer would adversely affect the claim under Section 163A against the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved. There is nothing in Secti
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
