Back
2020 Supreme(All) 703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Asif and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 2434 of 2018
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pawan Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: Ram Singh
Point of law: Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the Power of State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Sections 165 to 174. Thus, Section 163(A), which is part of Chapter 11 has not been included in the ambit of rule making under Section 176 and therefore, Rule 220-A will not be applicable to the statutory provisions contained in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which specifically provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis. It clearly provides that compensation as indicated in the second schedule is to be paid.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163-A – Accident claim – Insurance – Delegated power to legislate by making rules "for carrying out the purposes of the Act" is a general delegation without laying down any guidelines; it cannot be so exercised as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of the Act itself
Facts of the case: Appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh on the following grounds that claim petition was filed under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, tribunal was bound to follow the provisions contained in schedule 2 of the Act – That learned claims tribunal arbitrarily made a deduction of 1/5th from the income of the deceased whereas as per the second schedule only 1/3rd deduction is permissible. – That learned claims tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects whereas no future prospect could have been awarded in a case filed under Section 163-A. –
Finding of the court: Court is of the opinion that arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of their entitlement to payment of compensation in deviation of the provisions contained in second schedule is not sustainable, it deserves to be rejected and is rejected – As per the provisions contained in schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation will be recomputed as under; annual income Rs. 40,000/-, 1/3rd to be deducted towards personal expenses, therefore, dependency will come out to Rs. 26,667/- on which a multiplier of 16 will be applicable as the victim was between the age of 35-40 years, taking total compensation to Rs. 4,26,672/-.– Over and above, other claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of consortium as one of the beneficiary is wife of the deceased and Rs. 2,500/- towards the loss of estate. – Besides this, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,556/- towards the amount spent by them on treatment of the deceased as has been awarded by learned claims tribunal. Thus, total compensation will come out to Rs. 4,46,728/- in place of Rs. 7,21,756/- (seven lakhs twenty one thousand seven hundred and fifty six rupees) awarded by learned claims tribunal. –
Result: Appeal Disposed off
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by award dated 21.08.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh on the following grounds namely:-
(i) That claim petition was filed under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, tribunal was bound to follow the provisions contained in schedule 2 of the Act.
(ii) That learned claims tribunal arbitrarily made a deduction of 1/5th from the income of the deceased whereas as per the second schedule only 1/3rd deduction is permissible.
(iii) That learned claims tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects whereas no future prospect could have been awarded in a case filed under Section 163-A.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company has place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroada as reported in AIR 2004 SC 2107 wherein it has been held that by reason of Section 163-A, compensation is required to be determined on the basis of a structured formula whereas in terms of Section 140, only a fixed amount is to be given. It has been further held that a provision of law providing for compensation is presumed to be final in nature unless a contra is indicated, in the statutes either expressly or by necessary implication. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalya Devi and others decided by High Court of Delhi in M.A.C. Appeal No. 898 of 2006 decided on 14.03.2007 and as reproduced from MANU/DE/7345/2007 wherein it has been held that the tribunal cannot assess compensation in excess of annual income of Rs. 40,000/- as stipulated in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and others as reported in 2018 (1) TAC 3 (SC) wherein it has been held that grant of compensation under Section 163-A on the basis of structured formula is in nature of final award and adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of driver/owner of vehicle involved.
4. Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, on the other hand, submits that he is not pressing para-1 of his cross-objection, but in the light of the law laid down in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others as reported in 2019 (132) ALR 745 (SC), each of the claimants is entitled to loss of consortium and learned claims tribunal has erred in not awarding consortium to each of the claimants. It is also submitted that claims tribunal erred in reducing the income from Rs. 3,500/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month and in fact, it should have restricted the income to Rs. 40,000/- because even if minimum wages are taken into consideration on the date of the accident i.e., 28.01.2012, then for a truck driver, minimum wages were to the tune of more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. He supports remaining award and submits that no further indulgence is required. He further submits that even in a claim petition under Section 163-A, future prospects can be awarded and in support of his contention, he places reliance on Division Bench’s judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi and others as reported in 2015 (1) AICC 580, wherein Insurance Company had challenged the award, wherein Division bench of this Court held that even in a claim under Section 163-A, future prospects can be awarded in as much as it is open to the tribunal to consider granting compensation under other heads as specified under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Rules, 1998.
5. Similarly, reliance has been placed on
