Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager, Aizawl —Appellant
versus
Minor Lalthlanawma and Ors. —Respondents
MAC Appeal No. 29/2009 with 27/2009
Decided on 1.11.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. A.R. Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Zochhuana, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Normally 1/3rd of income ought to be kept out of purview for purpose of awarding compensation because this amount can be treated as personal expenses of deceased.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, Section 170—Appeal—Against award of Tribunal (MACT) by Insurer—Deceased, aged about 29 years working in P.W.D. as a Muster Roll worker on a monthly salary of Rs. 4186/-Died in an accident —Claim filed by her minor son through his next friend and guardian, maternal grandfather—Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 9,98,380/- —Pecuniary damages assessed at Rs. 8,98,380 and non pecuniary damages at Rs. 1.00,000/-Pecuniary damages assessed by taking income of deceased as Rs. 4991/- p.m. and applying multiplier of 15—Appellant contends, a deduction of
1/3rd not made towards expenses of deceased and no basis for arriving at non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1.00,000/-Held : Contention tenable—Pecuniary damages would come to Rs. 6,00,000/- by deducting 1/3rd towards personal living expenses of deceased—Towards non-pecuniary damages a sum of Rs. 45,000/- awarded lnstead of Rs. 1,00.000/- —Claimant entitled to total compensation of Rs. 6,45,000/- as against Rs. 9,98,380/- awarded by Tribunal—Interest awarded by Tribunal reduced from 9% to 7% p.a. on amount of compensation—Appeal disposed of. (Paras 8 to 13)
Result: Appeal diposed of.
Both these appeals arise out an A ward dated 22-7-2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 55/06.
2. The Claimant before the Tribunal is the minor son of Smti Malsawmkima, aged about 29 years. She died as a result of an accident and the claim was preferred by her minor son through his next friend and guardian, that is the maternal grandfather.
3. The deceased was working in the Public Works Department of the Government of Mizoram as a Muster Roll worker on a monthly salary of Rs.4186/-.
4. On the basis of the evidence on record and applying the guidelines laid down in the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs.9,98,380/- The pecuniary damages were assessed at Rs.8,98,3801- and the non-pecuniary damages were assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. The basis of arriving at the pecuniary damages was that the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 4991 per month and the multiplier applied was 15.
5. Out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deducted against the interim
Award already made in favour of the Claimant. The total amount due and payable to the Claimant was, therefore, Rs. 9,48,380/-.
6. The first objection taken by learned counsel for the appellant to the Award made by the MACT is that a deduction of one third(1/3rd) has not been made towards expenses of the deceased and the second objection is that there is no basis for arriving at non-pecuniary damages of Rs. l ,00,000/-.
7. In support of his first contention, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. One of the questions framed by the Supreme Court for its consideration was:
“Whether the determination towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be less than one fourth (1/4th) as contended by the appellant or should be one third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents?”
Answering this question, the Supreme Court laid down in paragraphs 25 to 32 of the Report that normally one third (1/3rd) of the income ought to be kept out of purview for the purposes of awarding compensation because this amount could be treated as personal expenses of the deceased.
8. As is seen from the Award made by the learned MACT in the present case, no deduction has been made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. If this deduction of 1/3rd is made in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma the amount of pecuniary damages would come to Rs. 4991×12 x 15 × 213= Rs. 5,98,920/- or Rs. 6,00,000/- (rounded off).
9. Insofar as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the MACT has given absolutely no reason for arriving at a figure of Rs.10,000/-. Going by the guidelines laid down in the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act the Claimant would be entitled to funeral expenses @ Rs. 2000/- loss of estate @ Rs.2500/- and medical expenses incurred before death @ Rs.15,000. Thus the total amount would be Rs.19,500/- as per the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles, Act.
10. Considering the fact that the amounts mentioned in the 2nd Schedule were fixed way back in 1988 and since the cost of living has increased over the last more than 20 years, it would be appropriate to double this amount to Rs 45,000/-. Accordingly towards non- pecuniary damages, I award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the claimant, instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
11. The total Award, therefore, would come to Rs.6,45,000/-. Out of this an amount of
Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the Claimant. Therefore, the sum due to the claimant would be Rs. 5,95,000/-.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the interest awarded at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment is made, is excessive since the bank rate as determined by the Reserve Bank of India is about 7% per annum. This is not disputed by learned counsel for the claimant.
13. Under the circumstances, the interes
