In FAO-860 OF 2016(O&M)- PUNJ HC- Under section 163-A of MV Act, future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in Claim Petition under this section is to be computed on structured formula provided in Second Schedule: P&H HC
Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan [05-12-2022]

Read Order: Santosh Kaur and Others v. Gurnam Singh and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 6, 2022: While dealing with a challenge by the claimants to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act , the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the observation of the Tribunal which was to the effect that no amount can be added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the present claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. 

The Bench of Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan held, 

“In light of all the foregoing discussions, I hold that under Section 163-A of the Act, future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act.”

In this case, the Truck which was being driven by the deceased was parked on the kacha berm of the road since its tire got punctured. When the deceased was trying to open the window of the Truck to come out, the Truck was struck by another vehicle which crushed the deceased, who suffered multiple injuries and died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by the cleaner Bant Singh. 

An FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. It was alleged that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of his death and he was survived by the appellants (his widow, minor daughter and son). Gurnam Singh, the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle (driven by deceased) while the second respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle. Compensation of Rs.8 lakhs was sought by way of filing the petition under Section 163-A of the Act before the Tribunal. 

The first respondent alleged that the salary of the deceased was only Rs. 3,000/- per month and that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the replying respondent had no liability to pay compensation. The factum that the second respondent was the insurer of the vehicle was admitted.

The insurance took a preliminary objection that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. The truck was not holding a valid route permit, registration certificate and the fitness certificate. On merit, it was alleged that no accident took place on the alleged date, time and place. FIR was alleged to be false and fabricated. It was further alleged that the vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. However, the insurance of the truck was admitted. 

The Tribunal observed that the appellants proved the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident while using the truck, in the age bracket between 35 to 40 years when he was earning Rs. 3300/- per month. It was further observed that no amount was to be added towards future prospects. After deducting 1/3rd of his income towards the personal expenses, it was held that claimants were entitled to the remaining 2/3rd of his income towards loss of dependency. By applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount of compensation was determined as R. 22400 (3300 x 2/3 x12 x16). 

Aggrieved, the claimants assailed the award by way of present appeal.

The appellant’s counsel submitted that since the age of the deceased was between the age group of 35 to 40 years, an addition of 50% should have been made in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir and Others, 2013 (9) SCC 54, which was not done by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that a very meager amount towards the consortium and funeral expenses was awarded. 

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel submitted that it was a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal was right in not adding the future enhancement. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that since claimants filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, for the said reason the compensation was calculated as per the structured formula provided in the said provisions. 

“While determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,300/-, the Tribunal has rightly observed that no amount can be added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects as the present claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Act”, the Court observed. 

In reference to this, the Court made reference to the High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok in the case of the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, MAC App No.10 of 2018 wherein it was held that once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. 

The Court also added that the petitioner’s counsel could not show any provisions under the Act as per which the future prospects are to be added while determining the monthly income of the deceased under Section 163-A of the Act.

Also, since the accident took place in 2007 when the second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act (inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. November 14, 1994), providing for a multiplier of 16 for the age group of 33 to 40, was prevailing. Thus, the Court that said multiplier was rightly applied by the Tribunal by the calculation of the compensation.

In the words of the Court,

“Since the accident took place on 03.05.2007 and the second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act was prevailing at the time of the accident which was inserted by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act as prevailing on the date of accident provides for a multiplier of 16 for the age group of 33 to 40. The said multiplier has been rightly applied by the Tribunal by the calculation of the compensation.”

Similarly, the Court observed that as per the said schedule, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium was rightly awarded by way of acceptance of the appeal.

In light of the above, the Court held that under Section 163-A of the Act, future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act. 

The petition was dismissed.