Full Text
°/° Date ofJudgment: 05.9.2011 MAC APPEAL No.lll/20in
JALEENA KHATOON & ORS. Appellant
Through: Mr.Kundan Kumar Lai, Advocate.
Respondents
Through: Ms^Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-1.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. T. (Oral) CM No.3482/2010 (for delav) In view of the averments made in the application the delay of 94 days in filing appeal is condoned. Apphcation is disposed of.
MAC APPEAL No. 111/2010 MAC APPEAL No.l 11/2010 )! 2011:DHC:14866
1. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 19.8.2009 vide which a total compensation in the sum of ^3,01,000/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants. This petition had been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act; this was pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner who had earlier filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act; on his application it has been converted into a petition under Section 163A of the said Act. The structured formula had been followed # by the learned Tribunal while awarding the aforenoted compensation. However, since the victim was a bachelor the deduction was made at 50% which in terms of the Second Schedule of Section 163 A is not the correct deduction. Deductions should have been l/3rd; to that extent the award requires modification.
2. On other counts the Tribunal had noted that there was no documentary evidence with the claimants to show income of the T deceased; there was no document to substantiate her submission that he was a diploma holder; in the absence of this documentary evidence minimum wages of ?3400/- per month were calculated as the income of the victim upon which 50% deduction was made on the ground of personal expenses, however, the structured formula MAC APPEAL No.l 11/2010 Page2of[4] of the Second Schedule of Section 163 A postulates deduction of l/3rd only. The calculationwould accordingly be: ?3400-?l 134(l/3rd of ?3400)= ?2266
3. Applying the multipher of 12 to the income of the victim (after deduction of l/3rd) the calculated figure works out to be ?27192/- which is the annual income of the victim to which the correct multiplier of 13 would apply keeping in view the age of the parents of the victim. Therefore under the head of "loss of dependency" the substituted figure would be (?27192 x 13=) ?3,53,496/- instead of ?2,66,000/-. A sum of ?25,000/- has been awarded under the head of "loss of love and affection"; ?5000/has been awarded on account of "funeral expenses"; ?5,000/- has been awarded for the "loss of estate". The total awarded amount would thus read as ?3,88,496/- upon which the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest (a) 7.5% per annum.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that future prospects have not been considered to which he is entitled is incorrect as in the case of award of compensation under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act; the strict applicability of the structured formula as contained in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be followed; this had been held by this MAC APPEAL No. 111/2010 V- Court in a judgment in the case MAC APPEAL No.199/2011decidedon 19.4.2011 Jaadish &Aiir. Vs. MadhavRaiMishra. The judgment of R.K.Malik & Anr. Vs. Kiran Pal & Ors. 2009(8) Scale 451 had granted fixed amount of ^75,000/- under the head of nonpecuniary damages; that was the case of a child victim; the said judgment is inapphcable. Moreover, in this case also nonpecuniary damages as noted hereinabove has been awarded in the sum of ?35,000/-. Appeal is disposed of accordinc INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 nandan MAC APPEAL No.111/2010 Page4of[4]