The compensation payable cannot be less than what is payable if there is no negligence.

This is a shocking case where the Tribunal for the death of the mother has awarded a paltry amount of Rs.10,000/- only on account of funeral expenses and has held that the claimant is not entitled to any other amount whatsoever.

2. To say the least, the award shows total lack of sensitivity on the part of the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. A death of a mother, howsoever old the mother may be, causes irreparable damage. True it is that under the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act), just compensation has to be paid and the compensation is mainly on the basis of monetary loss but even so, the Court must take a sensitive and pragmatic view of the matter. Even if the mother is very old, she will be the grandmother to the grandchildren. She will look after the grandchildren. Even if she is unable to work in the house, she will supervise the running of the house. It cannot be said that she does not contribute anything to the house. The mere presence of an elder member of the family to act as a guide and mentor to the younger members of the family itself is a great contribution made by the elderly people to the young children in the house.

3. If the reasoning of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was to be accepted, then it would lead to shocking results. To give an absurd example, if a son is spending Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/- every month on the treatment of the mother, can the tortfeasor claim that he should be compensated because the son has to no longer spend any money on his mother. The obvious answer is No. That is not the intention of the M.V. Act.

4. The M.V. Act itself envisages that under section 140, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid as no fault liability in each and every case of death. Even under section 163A of the M.V. Act, in case of no fault liability the minimum income of any person has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per year and accordingly, MAC App. No. 65 of 2014 Page 3 of 5 compensation has to be awarded. The learned Tribunal appears to have been totally unaware of the provisions of section 140 and 163A of the M.V. Act. This Court has repeatedly held that it would be a travesty of justice in case a person who files a petition under section 166 of the M.V. Act, proves negligence of the tortfeasor and is awarded an amount less than that which is payable under section 163A of the M.V. Act in the case of no fault liability. It is obvious that when negligence is proved, the compensation payable cannot be less than what is payable if there is no negligence. In no event, could the award have been less than Rs.50,000/- under section 140 of the M.V. Act.

5. At this stage, Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, states that the age of the deceased was not 42 years but 47 years. He also submits that the deceased was mentally infirm and unable to earn any amount. Even if the deceased was mentally infirm, according to the Schedule her income had to be taken at minimum of Rs.15,000/- per annum. In the statement in Court, the claimant stated that the age of his mother was 47 years at the time of accident. Therefore, it is apparent that the age was not 42 and was at least 47 years and the multiplier would be 13 and the compensation payable would be Rs.1,34,500/-.

6. In Puttamma and Others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another : AIR 2014 SC 706 , the Apex Court after dealing with the Second Schedule of the M.V. Act, the rising prices and inflation held that the Second Schedule enacted in 1994 has become redundant, irrational and unworkable. Thereafter, the Apex Court went on to hold as follows:-

“56. The Central Government was bestowed with duties to amend the Second Schedule in view of Section 163-A(3), but it failed to do so for 19 years in spite of repeated observations of this Court. For the reasons recorded above, we deem it proper to issue specific direction to the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways to make the proper amend