Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1076

2009(5) Supreme 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Ningamma & Anr. — Appellants
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24236 of 2008)
With
Civil Appeal No. 3540 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25497of 2008)
Decided on : 13-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Shekhar G. Devasa, B.V. Pinto, Rohit Pandey (for V.N. Raghupathy), Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):K.L. Nandwani (for Debasis Misra), Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of the owner or an authorized person section 163A does not have any application.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A – Section 163A has an overriding effect – Owner or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be – The claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. (Para 14)
        (2004) 5 SCC 385; (2007) 5 SCC 428 – Relied upon.
        (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A – In the case of third party liability of the insurance company would be unlimited – However, death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle will be governed by the contract of insurance – Section 163A will not have any application in respect of such an accident – Deceased having stepped into the shoes of the owner, the claim was not maintainable u/s 163A. (Para 19)
        (2008) 5 SCC 736; (2009) 2 SCC 417 – Relied upon.
        (c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Court is duty bound to arrive at a just compensation irrespective of any pleading – Court may even apply the multiplier specified in Second Schedule. (Para 23)
        C.A. Nos. 3317-3318 of 2009; (2003) 2 SCC 274 – Relied upon.
        (d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 16A and 166 – Even the son of the owner is not ‘third party’ – Neither section 163A nor section 166 applies. (Para 24)
        (2009) 2 SCC 417 – Relied upon.
       Facts of he case :
        1. On 09.09.2000, the deceased was traveling on a borrowed Motor Cycle. When the said motor cycle was proceeding, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet suddenly stopped and the deceased dashed against it. Consequently he sustained fatal injuries and on the way to Hospital, he died.
        2. The aforesaid motor cycle was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
        3. On 04.10.2000 Appellant No. 1, the wife of the deceased and Appellant No. 2 - minor son of the deceased filed a claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 8,10,000/- along with future interest etc.
        4. The Tribunal under its award dated 09.02.2005 partly allowed the claim petition holding that the said appellants are entitled to receive a total compensation amount of Rs. 2,59,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the respondent - Insurance Company.
        5. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 allowed the appeal holding that the claim petition before the Tribunal was not maintainable as there was no tort-feasor involved. It was also held that the claim under Section 163-A of the Act was barred when the income of the claimant is stated to be above Rs. 40,000/- per annum.
       Finding of the Court :
        High Court ought to have decided the just compensation.
       Result :
        Matter remanded back to High Court.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and involve similar questions of law, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.

3. The present appeals arise out of a motor accident claim. The claimant no. 1 and 2 are the wife and son respectively of the deceased-Ramappa. On 09.09.2000, the deceased was traveling on Hero Honda Motor Cycle, which he borrowed from its real owner for going from Ilkal to his native place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was proceeding on Ilkal-Kustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart proceeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet suddenly stopped and consequently deceased-Ramappa who was proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed against it. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, Ilkal, he died. The doctor of the general hospital, Ilkal conducted post mortem examination over dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to the injury to his liver. The aforesaid motor cycle in which the deceased was traveling at the time of accident was insured with the Insurance Company, namely, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said motor cycle was owned by one Paranagouda.

4. On 04.10.2000 Appellant No. 1, the wife of the deceased and Appellant No. 2 - minor son of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the MVA’) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VI, Bijapur, Karnataka (in short ‘the Tribunal’) being M.V.C. No. 896/2000 praying for compensation of Rs. 8,10,000/- along with future interest etc. on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased was a healthy person, aged about 32 years and engaged in agriculture, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and was the sole earning member in their family.

5. The Tribunal received evidence and tested the claim. The Tribunal held that in absence of definite and cogent proof of income, the income of the deceased was to be considered as Rs. 60/- per day as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased was ascertained as Rs. 1,800/- and yearly income as Rs. 21,600/- from which 1/3 was to be deducted leaving thereby Rs. 14,400/- as the net income of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased was found to be in between 30 to 35 years, the relevant multiplier to be applied was ‘17’.

6. Accordingly, the Tribunal under its award dated 09.02.2005 partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants holding that the said appellants are entitled to receive a total compensation amount of Rs. 2,59,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the respondent - Insurance Company. It is required to be stated at this stage that compensation as determined by the Tribunal was paid and received by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely the widow and the minor son.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4152/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka on the ground that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased and claim petition before the Tribunal was not maintainable as Section 163-A of the Act is not applicable unless there was another vehicle involved in the accident. The other ground of challenge was that the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition when the total income of the deceased was stated to be more than Rs. 40, 000/- per annum.

8. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 allowed the appeal holding that the claim petition before the Tribunal was not maintainable as there was no tort-feasor involved. It was also held that the claim Section 163-A of the Act was barred when the income of the claimant is stated to be above Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Consequently, the H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1076

IMPORTANT POINT In case of the owner or an authorized person section 163A does not have any application.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of the owner or an authorized person section 163A does not have any application.