Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday observed that a claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement was caused by the negligence of the offending vehicle in a road accident.

A single judge bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak observed, “In a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the 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.”

Court has further directed the West Bengal State Transport Corporation (WBSTC) to pay about Rs. 2 lakh compensation to the family of a minor girl who was killed in a road accident involving a WBSTC bus in 2007.

In the present case, an appeal was filed against an order issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that awarded the appellant compensation of only Rs.15,000/- plus interest under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988.

The victim's parents argued that a strict interpretation of Section 163A was necessary and that the negligent actions of the offending vehicle were irrelevant to the case. The provision addresses the calculation of compensation in the event of mortality or permanent disability.

Court said, “It is found from the impugned judgment that the learned Tribunal has framed the issue that whether the victim died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending ng 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 the 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 to negligence of the driver in the accident in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is liable to be set aside.”

The bench further stated that the determination of compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act should be based on the structured formula of the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. The Act's Second Schedule provides a fictitious income of Rs. 15,000 per year for non-earning individuals. Court added that the multiplier for a victim of a traffic tragedy under the age of 15 would be 20.

On the issue of deduction, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to hold that the determination of compensation in an application under Section 163A of the Act should be based on the structured formula of the Second Schedule to the Act, with a deduction of one-third of the notional income for personal and living expenses as specified in the Second Schedule.

Case Title: Sri Santosh Saha and Anr vs. The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation

Statute: Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act