Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. against an award of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimants, Mangal Gana Jambekar and Munni (Shanti) Mangal Jambekar, are the dependents of the deceased. The sole issue was whether the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents. The appellant insurance company argued, relying on obiter in Amrit Bhanu Shali, that the multiplier should be based on the age of the dependents. However, the court found that the consistent Supreme Court precedent, including U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma vs. DTC, and Susamma Thomas, holds that the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's use of the deceased's age for the multiplier.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Multiplier under Section 163A - The multiplier in the Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to be applied based on the age of the deceased, not the age of the dependents. The consistent view of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma vs. DTC, and Susamma Thomas supports this position. The obiter in Amrit Bhanu Shali cannot override this ratio. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
While applying the multiplier in the IInd Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should the court be guided by the age of the deceased or by the age of the dependents or claimants, whichever is higher?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The multiplier under Section 163A is to be applied based on the age of the deceased, not the age of the dependents.
Law Points
- Multiplier under Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 is determined by age of deceased
- not dependents
- obiter dicta cannot override ratio of Supreme Court decisions
- consistent view of Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra
- Sarla Verma vs. DTC
- and Susamma Thomas.
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 131
First Appeal No. 676 of 2013
Shri D.N. Kukday for appellant
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mangal Gana Jambekar, Munni (Shanti) Mangal Jambekar, Somaram Vyankatesh Sathait, Santoshkumar Sapildev Purohit
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Insurance company sought to set aside the award on the ground that multiplier should be based on age of dependents, not deceased.
Filing Reason
Dispute over the correct multiplier to be applied under Section 163A.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had applied multiplier based on age of deceased.
Issues
Whether the multiplier under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be based on the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that multiplier should be based on age of dependents, relying on obiter in Amrit Bhanu Shali.
Appellant also cited decisions of another Single Judge (S.B. Shukre, J.) supporting that view.
Ratio Decidendi
The consistent view of the Supreme Court, including U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma vs. DTC, and Susamma Thomas, establishes that the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased. The obiter in Amrit Bhanu Shali cannot override this ratio.
Judgment Excerpts
While applying the multiplier in the IInd Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court should be guided by the age of the deceased or by the age of the dependents or claimants, whichever is higher?
The consistent view taken by the Apex Court that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher.
Procedural History
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under Section 163A. The insurance company appealed to the High Court challenging the multiplier applied.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 163A
