Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. P. Naik and G. P. Singh, JJ.
KAMLA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
KISHANCHAND - Respondents
Misc. First Appeal 149 Of 1966
Decided On : 12/10/1969
(2) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Ss. 1-A & 2 – damages - when may be assessed.
The sections do not deal with liability at all; they only provide a new mode of enforcing the liability in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury which, before the constitution of the Tribunals was being enforced by Civil Courts. The object of these sections is to provide a cheap and speedy mode of enforcing liability arising out of use of Motor Vehicles. The remedy is made cheap by providing for application for compensation in place of suit and thus obviating the necessity of payment of Court fees. It is made expeditious by empowering the Tribunals to follow summary procedure and by cutting down second appeals. The sections are a complete Code in so far as they deal with the constitution, procedure and powers of the Tribunal and appeals against the awards made by the Tribunal. But these are all matters related to the mode of enforcement of liability. The sections do not enter the field of the law of liability which still remains to be governed by the ordinary law of Torts and the Fatal Accidents, 1855 and it is for this reason that the sections do not refer to them at all. The power to make an award "determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just" conferred on the Tribunal does not create any new basis or extent of liability. The Tribunal must determine the amount of compensation according to the substantive law of liability already in force. 1966 ACJ 349, 1957 ACJ 297 & AIR 1969 Delhi 183 referred to.
A Claims Tribunal inquiring into a claim for compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of a fatal accident arising out of the use of a motor Vehicles is bound to apply the law as contained in the Fatal Accidents Act. For example, it cannot award compensation unless the death was caused by wrongful act, neglect or default. Similarly it can award only such compensation which bears due relation to the loss sustained by the dependants and/or which is admissible to the estate of the deceased under section 2. [Para 3]
(3) Interpretation of statutes - power of construction of a provision - limitations on.
In the exercise of the power of construction the Courts can at times enlarge the brief text to unfold hidden meaning. But there is a line between exposition and legislation which is not to be crossed. [Para 3]
(4) Tort - negligence – damager - principles for calculating.
(5) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - S. 1-A - damages for death - principles for calculating -Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 110-B.
The assessment of damages in ordinary cases resolves into estimating the proper annual dependency - the multiplicand and selecting the number of year's purchase - the multiplier. There is not much difficulty in fixing the figure of annual dependency when the deceased is in employment with a steady salary which is likely to continue throughout his working life and when he does not leave behind any property likely to give any income to the dependents. The annual dependency at the time of his death may in such cases be taken as the basic or datum figure representing the multiplicant. As regards the selection of the number of years purchase the multiplier, regard is to be bad to the estimated remainder of working life of the deceased the probable duration of dependency of the dependants and the fact that instead of yearly payments a lump sum is to be awarded. It has been said that in an average case where the parties are not too old or ailing, the multiplier tends to be in the region of thirteen to eighteen.
A lower multiple may be applied where the normal period of dependency is likely to be curtailed, for example, where the widow is expected to remarry or where duration of dependency is otherwise not likely to last for estimated remainder of the deceased's working life. (1965) 2 All. ER 875, (1969) 1 All ER 518, (1969) 2 All. ER 178, (1942) 1 All. ER 657, (1951) 2 All. ER 448, AIR 1962 SC 1 & AIR 1966 SC 1750 referred to. [Para 4]
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is against an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowing a sum of Rs. 4,000/-as compensation payable to the appellants by the second respondent on account of the death of one Gurmukhdas, who was knocked down by a jeep. The jeep though owned by the first respondent, was borrowed on the date of the accident by the second respondent. The accident took place when the second respondent who was himself driving the jeep was going to the station to receive his guest. It has been found by the Tribunal that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the second respondent in driving the jeep. As at the time of the accident the jeep was not being used for the purpose of the owner, the first respondent was absolved from liability and that finding is not challenged before us. The grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inordinately low. As there is no cross appeal, the entire subject-matter involved in this appeal is the quantum of damages.
( 2 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal in awarding Rs. 4,000/- as compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles act has not correctly followed the principles settled by the Courts for assessing compensation under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inordinately low. ( 3 ) ON the contention raised by the learned counsel the first question that arises is: what is the law which the Tribunal must follow in assessing compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act ? we have come across three cases in which it has been held that a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act bears no connection to claims that can be made under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and the Tribunal need not follow the principles laid down by Courts for determining compensation under that Act. The three cases are: Mohd. Habibulla v. K. Sitammal, 1966 Acc. C. J. 349 (Mad), veena Kumari Kohli v. Punjab Roadways, 1967 Acc. C. J. 297 (Punj) and Ishwar dcvi v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Delhi 183. The reasoning in these cases is that having regard to the increase of motor accidents, the Legislature enacted Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act providing a self-contained code for adjudication of claims for compensation made on behalf of victims of a motor accident, that these sections do not make any reference whatsoever to the Fatal accidents Act and that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the tribunal to award compensation "which appears to it to be just", words which are wider in scope than the words used in Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents act. We respectfully differ. The group of Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles act deal with the constitution of Claims Tribunals "for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles", and lay down the procedure and powers of these Tribunals. These sections also provide for an appeal to the High Court and bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts "to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. " Nothing is said in these sections about the basis and extent of liability or even about persons who can be subjected to liability. The sections do not deal with liability at all; they only provide a new mode of enforcing the liability in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury which before the constitution of the Tribunals was being enforced by Civil Courts. The object of these sections is to provide a cheap and speedy mode of enforcing liability arising out of use of Motor Vehicles. The remedy is made cheap by providing for application for compensation in place of suit and thus obviating th
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
