S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the owner appellant.

( 2 ) THE appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, determining an amount of Rs. 8,92,700 as just compensation to which the dependants of the deceased Subodh kumar Sharma were found entitled to on account of his untimely death having been caused in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle-the bus which was owned and being run by the present appellant.

( 3 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record, had come to the conclusion that Subodh Kumar Sharma had died in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle on 27. 4. 1996. The deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of death and was employed as a Senior Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air force, Station Hindon, Ghaziabad.

( 4 ) IT may be noticed that the death had occurred in the accident caused by the explosion of bomb in the Bus. The Tribunal drew ample support for its conclusion from the observations made in the case of Samir Chand v. M. D. , Assam State Transport Corporation, 1998 (3) AWC 2385 (SC): 1998 (2) TAC 643 (SC ).

( 5 ) TAKING into consideration the age factor and the number of the dependants left by the deceased, the Tribunal had utilised the multiplier of 16 for calculating the amount of compensation. Although the deceased was receiving a salary of an amount of Rs. 7,450 per month, yet taking into consideration the assertions of the claimants that the substantive pay of the deceased was Rs. 6,900 per month, the amount of compensation was calculated taking the lesser figure of Rs. 6,900 per month and not taking into account the figure of Rs. 7,450. Excluding 1/3rd of the amount from the monthly salary which the deceased might be spending upon himself, the extent of annual dependency was calculated at a figure of Rs. 55,200.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the award is not at all sustainable in law as the application for compensation had been specifically filed claiming it to be an application under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention is that since the claimants themselves had so specified, their claim had to be considered as contemplated under section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the annual income of the deceased could not be held to be over and above the maximum which has been prescribed in the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act which Is Rs. 40,000 p. a. only.

( 7 ) SO far as the above aspect is concerned, it may be noticed that Section 163a of the Motor vehicles Act as well as Second Schedule referable to that section was deleted vide the amending Act No. 30 of 2001 which came Into force on September 3, 2001. The accident had taken place on 27. 4. 1996. The claim petition, however, had been filed in the year 2000. During the pendency of the claim petition, the amendment became effective and Section 163a of the motor Vehicles Act itself was deleted. The effect was that by the date of the judgment/award, the only provision under which the claim petition could be continued, was the provision under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the absence of Section 163a of the Act and the schedule II, which contains only the guidelines, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceeded with the claim petition treating the same to be a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and determined the amount of compensation applying the principles attracted to a claim filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 8 ) IT may be noticed that Section 163b of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163a, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both but there is no provision which may prohibit the conti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document