High Court
Case Details
1 AFR Reserved on 29.10.2021 Delivered on 11.2.2022 Court No. - 46 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3192 of 2017 Appellant :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Divl. Manager Respondent :- Smt. Archana Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Radhey Shyam,Sushil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shirish Srivastava, leaned Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. 2. The challenge to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar is confined to the issue of quantum of compensation, i.e. the alleged illegality in the computation made by the Tribunal. The issue no. 5 in the decision of the Tribunal under challenge is on the quantum of compensation. 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are two folds: the first is that the Tribunal had wrongly made deduction to the extent of 1/4th for personal expenses of deceased in ignorance of U.P. Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 (In short as “the Rules, 2011) which provides in Rule 220-A (3) that for the purposes of calculation of number of family members as per Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the said sub-rule (2), i.e. for the deduction towards personal and living expenses of a married person (deceased), a minor dependent will be counted as half.
Legal Reasoning
The contention is that as the deceased was survived by two minor children apart from his wife, total number of dependent family members would be two (2). The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have made deduction of 1/3rd in the said category. 2 4. To deal with this submission, suffice it to note that the dependent family members of deceased as narrated in the claim petition and noted by the Tribunal are five (5); wife, two minor children, mother and father of the deceased. A categorical statement has been made in the claim petition that the claimant wife, her children and parents of deceased were wholly dependent upon him. Nothing contrary could be brought before us. Considering the number of dependent family members being five, we find that the Tribunal had correctly applied the ratio given in Rule 220-A(2)(ii) of the Rules, 2011. Even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company regarding application of sub rule (2)(iii) are accepted in this regard, counting minor dependents as half, the total number of dependent family members would be four (4). In both the eventuality, the dependent family members being between four(4) to six(6) in number, the deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of deceased cannot be said to be unjust or in contravention of Rule 220-A(2)(ii) and (iii). The first ground of challenge is, therefore, turned down. 5. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the multiplier chosen by the Tribunal. The contention is that the deceased was admittedly more than 31 years of age on the date of the accident. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, the multiplier in the table in paragraph '40' was to be applied as against the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Column (4) of the table given in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 16 had to be applied for the deceased his age being in the bracket of 31 to 35 years. The Tribunal has erred in choosing the multiplier of 17 from the table in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short as 1 2009 (6) SCC 121 3 “the Motor Vehicles Act”). 6. To contradict this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and others 2, wherein the decision of this Court in a First Appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was challenged on the ground that Rule 3(iii) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions drawn by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi 3 The challenge in the said appeal was to the quantum of compensation on the premise that addition of 20% of the salary in the future prospects of deceased, more than 50 years of age was illegal. It was contended therein that by application of sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 220-A of the Rules 1998, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking decision in contravention of the conclusions arrived by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court wherein it was held that there should be an addition of 15% in case of the deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. The Apex Court, however, had turned down the objection of the appellant-Insurance Company noticing that the validity of the Rules was not in question in the said matter and the Court cannot restrict the scope of the Rules which afford a favourable treatment to the claimant. 7. Based on this decision, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondent claimants that on the date of the decision given by the Tribunal, the Second Schedule was very much in existence on the statute book. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to have erred in giving benefit of the multiplier provided in the Second Schedule. 8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant, however, asserted that the table given in paragraph '40' of the decision of the Apex Court in 2 Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 3 2017 (16) SCC 680 4 Sarla Verma (supra) is final and binding on the High Court and submits that in any case, the Tribunal or this Court cannot deviate from the said decision. 9. To deal with the above contentions, we would be required to go through the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), specifically paragraphs '13' to '42' which contain the discussion on the question of selection of multiplier. The Apex Court had noticed therein various discrepancies/errors in the multiplier scale given in the Second Schedule table and found that it prescribes a lesser compensation for cases where a higher multiplier of 18 is applicable and a larger compensation with reference to cases where a lesser multiplier of '15', '16' or '17' is applicable. It was, therefore, inferred that a clerical error has crept in the Schedule and the multiplier figure got wrongly typed therein. Another incongruity which was noticed therein is that the table prescribed the compensation payable even in cases where the annual income ranges between Rs. 3000/- to Rs.12000/- whereas the notional minimum income of non-earning persons is prescribed therein as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. This has led to a situation where the compensation will be higher in cases where the deceased was idle and not having any income than in cases where the deceased was already earning an income ranging between Rs. 3000/- and Rs.12,000/- per annum. 10. The Apex Court, thereafter, considered its earlier decisions in Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas 4, U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra 5 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie 6 to consider the multiplier indicated therein for claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for carving out the table in paragraph '40' of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). It was, thereafter, stated that in order to avoid any