This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, `the Act, 1988'] filed by the appellant - New India Assurance Company Limited arises out of judgment and award dated 29.7.2006 passed by the by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [FTC-5], Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.692/2002, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,04,500/- and interest @9% p.a. from the date of main claim petition till deposit of the awarded amount from opponent Nos.2 and 3 in the claim petition jointly and severally. The above petition was treated and decided under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present appellant is as under:
2.1 On 04.04.2001, at about 13-30 hours deceased, Sachin Shamji Chavda, aged 07 years, along with his grandmother was returning to their home on foot. At that time, at about 12.30 hours near main road of village Bhimasar, driver during the course of his employment with one Manish Shyam Amarnani drove his trailer No.GJ-12-V-8595 in a very rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules, dashed with minor Sachin and caused his death. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to Referral Hospital, Anjar-Kachchh but the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said driver and since the opponents before the Tribunal being tort fissures are liable to pay the said compensation along with the interest.
3. After considering the relevant documents and hearing the parties and statutory scheme of awarding compensation in case of accident under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the claimant need not to plead, establish and prove the point of negligence and only involvement of the vehicle is required to be seen from the relevant record and depositions, the learned Tribunal against the claim of the claimant of Rs.2.04.500/-, where the deceased was a minor aged about 7 years, the Tribunal applied Second Schedule for third party fatal/injury cases, under section 163A of the Act and on the basis of decisions in the cases of [i] National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Muneer & Ors. [2003 ACJ 1102] and [ii] National Insurance Company v. Tarshi Vaga Koli rendered in First Appeal No.1697 of 2003 and other such decisions, in para 17 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has held as under:
"17. The Second Schedule for compensation for third part fatal/injury causes claims suggests so far as the age of victim upto 15 years is concerned, the compensation to be payable under the Annual Income of Rs.12,000=00 and Rs.18,000=00 respectively, to be Rs.2,40,000=00 and Rs.3,60,000=00. If mean of the two figures is taken, then it comes to Rs.3,00,000=00 and exactly the said mean would indicate the annual income of Rs.15,000=00 as suggested in the said Second Schedule for the person having no income. This is the case wherein the minor's dependency benefit is required to be calculated, so the mean of Rs.3,00,000=00 would be just, proper and reasonable to be taken at the time of arriving at just and reasonable compensation in respect of a minor who lost the life in a vehicular accident. While calculating the dependency benefits, from Rs.3,00,000=00, 1/3rd of the same is required to be deducted towards the contribution of personal expenses of the deceased which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, so after deducting the said 1/3rd amount, the net amount would be available to the tune of Rs.2,00,000=00. Again, on the head of funeral expenses and loss of Estate, respectively, sum of Rs.2,000=00 and Rs.2,500=00 are required to be added making total of RS.2,04,500=00. This is exactly the amount which the petitioners are entitled to claim. The petitioners, of course, have claimed compensation of Rs.2,04,500=00 with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum, but they are entitled to only Rs.2,04,500=00 with interest and costs"
4. Mr.
Shalin Mehta, learned advocate for he appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal erred in law in awarding the sum of Rs.2,04,500/- with running interest @9% pa from the date of claim petition till its deposit with costs by misinterpreting and misapplying and deviating from the Second Schedule of the Act since the claim petition was filed under section 163A of the Act and the claimant was entitled to the amount of compensation admissible to them under the Second schedule of the Act and the deceased was 7 years old minor, notional income was required to be assessed at Rs.1,500/- p.a. as per the above schedule of the Act taking multiplier of 15. The claimant ought to have been given Rs.1,50,000/- and other miscellaneous expenses. It is therefore submitted that to the above extent the impugned award of the Tribunal is to be reduced and the award to be modified accordingly.
5. As against the above, Shri Hiren Modi for the opponent claimant would justify the reasonings of the Tribunal contained in para 17 of the award and submitted that the Tribunals adopted a rational has calculated the compensation by arriving at a mean by considering annual income of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively divided by two would come to Rs.3,000/-, and therefore, the said amount would indicate the annual income of Rs.15,000/- and applying the multiplier and thereafter deducting the same 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive Rs.2,04,500=00 with running interest of 9% with costs on the basis of decision of this Court referred to in earlier paragraphs cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary or contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned advocate would further submit that the Second Schedule is to Motor Vehicles Act with regard to claim petition under Section 163A has come into force from November, 1994 and subsequent amendment of section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, specifically provides periodical and timely revision of the said schedule, but for about 18 years no revised notification is issued by the competent authority of the Central Government and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is decided on the touch stone of just compensation along with interpretation put forth by this Court in the case of Tarshi Vaga Koli [supra] the award of the Tribunal does not require any interference.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, it is clear that the deceased being minor, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the minor at Rs.15,000 per annum and arrived at Rs.3,00,000/- as per the Second Schedule to the Act, 1988 and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses, the Tribunal considered Rs.2,00,000/- to be future economic loss. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards cremation expenses and Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,04,500/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal based on the interpretation of provisions of Section 163A read with Second Schedule of the Act, 1988 and decision of this Court in the case of Tarshi Vaga Koli [supra] and applicability of notional income vis-a-vis age of the deceased and arriving at a just compensation by applying mean formula to the claimant of the deceased child aged 7 years, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in awarding Rs. 2,04,500/- along with interest @9% per annum to the claimant.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top