- (1.) THIS is the claimants' appeal whose claim under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide award dated 27.02.2006 on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased was over Rs.40,000/ - per annum.
(2.) THE issue involved in the present appeal is short. The claimants approached the Claims Tribunal with a petition under Section 163 -A of the Act seeking compensation for the death of Ganesh Kumar in the accident, which occurred on 20.03.2003. The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.6,500/ -per month and was a driver under respondent No.1. Additionally, he was getting Rs.100/ - per day as diet allowance. The Tribunal relying upon a Full Bench decision of Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 declined the prayer and dismissed the petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants had urged that in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and anr., 2009 6 SCC 121, a two Judges' Bench had referred to Section 163 -A and the Second Schedule and the observations clearly show that the annual income of the deceased can be more than Rs.40,000/ - per month. He had referred specifically to para 17 of the judgment. It would be thus relevant to refer to it. It reads as under: "The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/ - to Rs.40,000/ -. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/ -. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes upto 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one -third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/ -, by applying the formula : (2/3 x AI x M), that is two -thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation. Several principles of tortious liability are excluded when the claim is under section 163A of MV Act. There are however discrepancies/errors in the multiplier scale given in the Second Schedule Table. 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. From the quantum of compensation specified in the table, it is possible to infer that a clerical error has crept in the Schedule and the 'multiplier' figures got wrongly typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 and 5 instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5. Another noticeable incongruity is, having prescribed the notional minimum income of non -earning persons as Rs.15,000/ - per annum, the table prescribes the compensation payable even in cases where the annual income ranges between Rs.3000/ - and Rs.12000/ -. This leads to an anomalous position in regard to applications under Section 163A of MV Act, as the compensation will be higher in cases where the deceased was idle and not having any income, than in cases where the deceased was honestly earning an income ranging between Rs.3000/ - and Rs.12,000/ - per annum. Be that as it may." It was also contended that even otherwise if the Tribunal finds that the claim would not lie and as the income was more, the amount can be scaled down to bring it within the four corners of the Second Schedule.;