Claimant Not Required To Establish Negligence Of Offending Vehicle U/S 163A Motor Vehicles Act: Calcutta High Court

The victims’ parents had approached the Court against an order of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, wherein it only awarded them Rs 15,000 in compensation. They argued that strict interpretation of Section 163A was needed and that the negligence of the offending vehicle would be immaterial in such cases however, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the aspect of negligence.

It was also argued that notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum should be taken into account in case of minor-victim, with multiplier 20. Moreover, there should not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

In setting aside the order of the Tribunal, and re-calculating the amount of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with determining compensation in case of death or permanent disablement, the Bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak held:

“Upon bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it manifests that, in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. However, it is found from the impugned judgment that the learned Tribunal has framed issue that whether the victim died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and has also proceeded to decide such issue holding the negligence of the driver. The finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the aspect of negligence of the driver is not in consonance with the provisions envisaged under Section 163A of the Act and therefore, such finding of the learned Tribunal with regard negligence of the driver in the accident in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is liable to be set aside.”

With regard to the determination of income of the minor-victim, the Bench said determination of compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act should be made on the basis of the structured formula of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Second Schedule to the Act provides for notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum in case of non-earning persons. The multiplier for a victim of road accident who was aged below 15 years would be 20, Court added.

On the aspect of deduction, the bench relied on Supreme Court's decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to hold that the determination of compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act should be made on the basis of the structured formula of the Second Schedule to the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the notional income towards personal and living expenses as provided under the Second Schedule is to be taken into account.

The Court modified the compensation award acordingly.

Case Title: Sri Santosh Saha and Anr vs The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation FMA 3357 of 2015

Coram: Justice Bivas Pattanayak Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 158

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment