Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by Gangavva, mother of deceased Raghavendra, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident occurred on 13.02.2008 when the deceased was riding a motorcycle with his mother as pillion rider, and a bus owned by NWKRTC driven rashly and negligently dashed against them, causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The claimant sought compensation, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,56,676/- with 6% interest. The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, challenging the deduction of 1/3rd instead of 50% for personal expenses and the multiplier of 13. The High Court noted that the note to Schedule-II of the MV Act mandates a 1/3rd deduction, not 50%, and thus the Tribunal's deduction was correct. However, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 13 instead of 14, as the mother was aged 45 years, and as per Sarla Verma, the appropriate multiplier is 14. Despite this error, the court found that the insurer suffered no monetary loss, as the overall compensation was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Dependency - Deduction 1/3rd - Section 163-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Note to Schedule-II - The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the deceased's income for personal expenses, which is in accordance with the note to Schedule-II. The insurer's contention that 50% should be deducted for an unmarried deceased was rejected. (Paras 4-6)
B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Claimant - Section 163-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The mother of the deceased was aged 45 years, and as per Sarla Verma, the appropriate multiplier is 14. The Tribunal's use of multiplier 13 was erroneous, but the error did not cause monetary loss to the insurer. (Para 6)
C) Motor Accident Claims - Appeal by Insurer - Dismissal - Section 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, as the insurer suffered no monetary loss from the impugned award. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 50% of the deceased's income for loss of dependency and in applying multiplier 13 instead of 14.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal are upheld.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Section 163-A MV Act
- Loss of Dependency
- Multiplier
- Deduction 1/3rd
- Schedule-II Note
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 51
M.F.A. NO. 22286/2010 (MV)
Smt. Shashikala L. Desai (for appellant), Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri (for respondent)
The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belgaum, Rep. By its Managing Director, NWKRTC Central Office, Gokul Road Hubli
Gangavva, W/o. Chandrakant Talawar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by insurer against award of compensation in a motor accident claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-insurer sought reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The insurer challenged the Tribunal's deduction of 1/3rd instead of 50% of the deceased's income for personal expenses and the application of multiplier 13.
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal (MACT, Belgaum) awarded Rs.3,56,676/- with 6% interest in MVC No.1216/2008 on 29.12.2009.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 50% of the deceased's income for loss of dependency?
Whether the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier 13 instead of 14?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant-insurer argued that since the deceased was unmarried, 50% should be deducted for personal expenses, and the Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- twice under the same head.
Respondent-claimant argued that the deceased had responsibility to maintain a large family, so 1/3rd deduction was correct, and the multiplier should be 14 as per Sarla Verma.
Ratio Decidendi
In claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the deduction for personal expenses is governed by the note to Schedule-II, which mandates a 1/3rd deduction, not 50%. The multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant, not the deceased, as per Sarla Verma. An error in multiplier that does not cause monetary loss to the insurer does not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive.
In that view of the matter, the appellant-insurer has not suffered any monitory loss from the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, the same is devoid of merits.
Procedural History
The claimant filed MVC No.1216/2008 before MACT, Belgaum, which awarded compensation on 29.12.2009. The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act to the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which heard and dismissed the appeal on 16.06.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 163-A, 173(1)
