Compensation under Section 163A for death of employee driver must follow Second Schedule: annual income times age-based multiplier minus 1/3rd personal expenses, plus fixed funeral, consortium and estate amounts; Section 166 parameters inapplicable.

Judgment :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the MV Act) against award dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla (in short ‘the MACT) in MAC Petition No. 14-R/2 of 2009 titled Madhu Bala and others vs. National Insurance Company and another , whereby claimants have been held entitled for compensation amounting to Rs.7,19,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit/payment of amount with direction to the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner by paying the amount within four months to the claimants, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award shall be payable to the claimants.

2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred as claimants, Insurance Company and the owner.

3. Claimants had filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 10 lacs on account of death of Sanjeev Mehta in an motor accident on 15.3.2009 at Mahi-Pul in Police Station Theog, District Shimla at about 2 PM when a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-10-1245 being driven by deceased Sanjeev Mehta met with an accident. In this regard, FIR No. 39 of 2009 dated 15.3.2009 Ext.PW1/A was registered in the Police Station wherein as per statement made by Dinesh, who was also travelling in the car, the accident took place on account of rash or negligent driving of Sanjeev Mehta. Sanjeev Mehta expired on the same day at about 3.15 PM and his postmortem was conducted on 16.3.2009. The postmortem report is Ext.PW2/A.

4. As per claimants, 33 years old Sanjeev Mehta was employed as driver with the owner of car and was getting Rs.3300/- per month as wages. According to them, one Dinesh, brother of owner of vehicle, who had lodged FIR, and Inder Singh, relative of owner of car, were going in the Maruti Car No. HP-10-1245 to Dr. Y.S. Parmar Horticulture University, Solan to bring the seeds of flowers from the University and the said car, being driven by deceased Sanjeev Mehta, skid on the road and vehicle rolled down from the road and accident could not be avoided despite every effort made by deceased, and Inder Singh and Sanjeev Mehta expired on the spot, whereas Dinesh suffered injuries.

5. In first response to petition filed on 17.6.2010, owner had denied the status of deceased Sanjeev Mehta as driver with him but had stated that Sanjeev Mehta was never employed as driver but Sanjeev Mehta was relative and friend of the owner and was having valid driving licence and he had requested the owner to hand over the vehicle to him because he and his friends intended to go to the University to take the flowers’ seeds from the University and, as such, car was handed over to Sanjeev Mehta and, therefore, it was stated that there was no question of payment of salary to Sanjeev Mehta. It was contended that in case owner was found liable to pay compensation then the said compensation had to be paid by the Insurance Company because the owner was duly insured with insurer and all documents of vehicle including the driving licence of deceased and Insurance Pol