Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim where the deceased, Sukhvandir Singh, was a driver of a truck (No. CG04 ZC5065) belonging to respondent No.1. On 27.11.2002, while driving on National Highway No.6 in Raipur District, the truck struck a pole, resulting in his death. The truck was insured with the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,500 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, holding the appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally liable. The appellant insurer appealed, contending that the quantum was excessive, specifically arguing that the Tribunal erroneously presumed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.2000 without documentary proof. The appellant relied on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan to argue that the Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can only be used as a guide. The respondent No.1 supported the award, citing Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The High Court perused the impugned judgment and noted that the deceased's occupation as a truck driver was undisputed. Although a salary certificate showing Rs.3000 per month was listed but not proved, the Tribunal's presumption of Rs.2000 per month for a truck driver in 2002 was not erroneous. The Court held that the multiplier from the Second Schedule can be used as a guide, and following Sarla Verma, the income should be determined, personal expenses deducted, and an appropriate multiplier selected. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach and dismissed the appeal, upholding the award.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Quantum - Presumption of Income - The Tribunal presumed the monthly income of the deceased truck driver at Rs.2000 per month in the year 2002, which was held not erroneous given the occupation and year. The insurer's argument that the claimant failed to produce salary certificate was rejected as the occupation itself supported the inference. (Paras 4-6) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Multiplier - Second Schedule - The multiplier given in the Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be used as a guide, not as a ready reckoner, as held in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan. (Para 4) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Multiplicand - Deduction for Personal Expenses - As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the income of the deceased per annum should be determined, and a deduction for personal and living expenses should be made to arrive at the contribution to the dependant family, which constitutes the multiplicand. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal are upheld.
Law Points
- Quantum of compensation
- Presumption of income
- Multiplier
- Second Schedule as guide
- Deduction for personal expenses
