Back
R.BASANT, N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Thazhepalam, Tirur – Appellant
Versus
M. Madhavan – Respondent
What is the proper method to determine compensation under Section 163A for fatal accidents, including the role of the Second Schedule's table/chart and the inapplicability of the multiplier? What is the entitlement of claimants under Section 163A when multiple vehicles are involved and whether the claim can be brought against only the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling? What is the legality and scope of converting a Section 166 claim to Section 163A, and the authority of claimants to choose between sections?
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. T
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
