IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, CJ.
Harendra Deb Barma and Smti Kanya Rani Deb Barma - Appellant
Versus
Commandant, 59 Bn., B.S.F. - Respondent
M.A.C. App. 34 of 2007
Decided On : 08-01-2014
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation Assessment - Deduction for Personal Expenses
Fact of the Case:
The claimants appealed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, challenging the deduction of 1/3rd from the compensation awarded under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation assessed under Section 163A should be in accordance with the schedule, which mandates a deduction of 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased. The court enhanced the award by Rs. 3,500/- and ordered the insurance company to pay interest at 6% per annum.
Issues: The main issue was the deduction of 1/3rd from the compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation assessed under Section 163A must adhere to the schedule, which requires a deduction of 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with an enhancement of the award by Rs. 3,500/- and an order for the insurance company to pay interest at 6% per annum.
Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-
The claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- has been awarded to the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The main grievance of Mr. Roy, is that no deduction of 1/3rd could have been made after assessing the compensation payable under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99, wherein in the case of a 13 year old boy the Apex Court held that the income should be taken to be Rs. 15,000/- and multiplier of 15' should be used and finally awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-
3. The Apex Court has not laid down any proposition of law that no deduction has to be made. It is also clear that the attention of the Apex Court was not drawn to the note below the second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as follows:
Note:- The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive.
4. The law is very clear that once compensation is being assessed in terms of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, it has to be assessed as per the schedule and when the schedule itself provides that 1/3rd of the compensation assessed has to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in taking the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- applying the multiplier of 15', assessing the compensation at Rs. 2,25,000/- and deducting Rs. 75,000/- for the personal expenses of the deceased.
5. The only error is that in addition to the sum of Rs. 2,000/- awarded as funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- had to be awarded as loss to the estate and Rs. 1,000/- for medical expenses. Therefore, the award should have been Rs. 1,56,500/- and not Rs. 1,53,000/-. The award is accordingly enhanced by Rs. 3,500/-.On this enhanced amount of Rs. 3,500/- the insurance company shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit thereof in the Registry of this Court within 2 (two) months from today.
6. The appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Send back the LCRs forthwith.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.