# Verma and others v. Delhi Transport

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 666
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-14
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar, Het Singh Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/verma-and-others-v-delhi-transport-42249
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section-163-A-
(2)-deceased TRAVELLING IN Tractor
Trolley-accident
took
place
due
to
negligence to Bus Driver-running Bus
from wrong side-Tribunal awarded much
excess than the amount claimed-held-no
requirement of prove of negligence
under Section 163-A (2)-no interference
called for-Appeal dismissed.

Held: Para 6

We are of the view that even if the
claimant claimed less amount but in a
case of death or permanent disability,
under the Statute, it is required that the
compensation is to be calculated in
accordance to the Schedule II of the Act.
Therefore, the compensation should be
calculated in accordance to Schedule II.
In the present case, the Tribunal has
rightly done so.
Case law discussed:
2009 (2) TAC 677

## Text

666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE HET SINGH YADAV, J

First Appeal From Order No. - 1921 Of 2012

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Rani Devi and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Saral Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
.......................................

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section-163-A-
(2)-deceased TRAVELLING IN Tractor
Trolley-accident
took
place
due
to
negligence to Bus Driver-running Bus
from wrong side-Tribunal awarded much
excess than the amount claimed-held-no
requirement of prove of negligence
under Section 163-A (2)-no interference
called for-Appeal dismissed.

Held: Para 6

We are of the view that even if the
claimant claimed less amount but in a
case of death or permanent disability,
under the Statute, it is required that the
compensation is to be calculated in
accordance to the Schedule II of the Act.
Therefore, the compensation should be
calculated in accordance to Schedule II.
In the present case, the Tribunal has
rightly done so.
Case law discussed:
2009 (2) TAC 677

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant.

2. This is an appeal by the insurance
company. The appellant is the insurer of
bus bearing registration no.UP-93C-2348.
The accident took place on 27.04.2009.
The case of the claimant was that few
persons, namely, Laxmi Narain and Jai
Ram Sahu and others were travelling in
tractor trolley going from Jhansi to their
village. The tractor was going on its own
side while the bus came from right side
and hit the tractor trolley, as a result of
accident, the tractor trolley turtled causing
grievous injuries to the persons sitting in
the tractor trolley. Jai Ram Sahu and
Nand Kishore died and other persons
suffered injuries. The first information
report was lodged and site plan was
prepared. Laxmi Narain, who was eye
witness stated that the driver of the bus
was driving the bus negligently and came
to the wrong side and hit the tractor
trolley. The site plan filed by learned
counsel for the appellant is at page no.54
of the memorandum of appeal, also
reveals that the bus came from wrong side
and hit the tractor trolley. The accident
was caused on account of the negligence
of the driver of the bus. Tribunal on the
basis of the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, reported in
2009 (2) TAC, 677 has assessed the
compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the claim was made under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
at Rs.2,81,500 while the Tribunal has
awarded the compensation to the extent of
Rs.3,93,500/= in excess to the amount
claimed by the claimant which is not
justified.
2 All] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. Smt. Rani Devi and others
667
4. We do not find any substance in the
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant.

Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act are being reproduced below:

"163-A. Special provisions as to
payment of compensation on structured
formula
basis.-
(1)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force or
instrument having the force of law, the
owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised
insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of
death or permanent disablement due to
accident arising out of of the use of motor
vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the
Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this
sub-section, "permanent disability" shall
have the same meaning and extent as in the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation
under sub-section (1), 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.

(3) The Central Government may,
keeping in view the cost of living by
notification in the Official Gazette, from
time to time amend the Second Schedule.

166. Application for compensation.-
(1) An application for compensation arising
out of an accident of the nature specified in
sub-section (1) of section 165 may be
made.-
(a) by the person who has sustained the
injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the
accident, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the
person injured or all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased, as the case
may be:

Provided that where all the legal
representatives of the deceased have not
joined
in
any
such
application
for
compensation, the application shall be made
on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal
representatives of the deceased and the legal
representatives who have not so joined,
shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.

(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be made, at the option of
the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal
having jurisdiction over the area in which
the accident occurred, or to the Claims
Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries
on business or within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides,
and shall be in such form and contain such
particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for
compensation under section 140 is made in
such application, the application shall
contain a separate statement to that effect
immediately before the signature of the
applicant.
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
3[*****]

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any
report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of Section 158 as an application
for compensation under this Act."

5. Section 163-A starts with nonabstante clause "Notwithstanding any thing
contained", therefore, it has an over-riding
effect on other sections of the Act.

6.

The
application
for
the
compensation is required to be moved under
Section 166 of the Act. Section 163-A
provides that the compensation is payable by
the owner or the insurer in the case of the
death or permanent disability. Section 163-A
(2) provides that it is not required to prove
wrongful act, negligence or default on the
part of the driver of the vehicle. Whether the
application has been moved under Section
166 or 163-A of the Act, in both the cases,
compensation has to be calculated under
Schedule II, provided under the Act in case
of death or permanent disability. In the
present case, the compensation has been
calculated under Schedule II of the Act. The
claimant claimed that the income of the
deceased was Rs.3300/= per month, but in
the absence of any evidence, notional income
of the deceased has been taken at Rs.3,000/=
per month, in view of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
(supra). It appears that the claimant might
have not applied the proper multiplier as per
the Schedule and has not claimed the other
admissible compensation, which is normally
awarded. It is not the case where the Tribunal
has estimated higher income of the deceased
than the income claimed by the claimant. We
are of the view that even if the claimant
claimed less amount but in a case of death or
permanent disability, under the Statute, it is
required that the compensation is to be
calculated in accordance to the Schedule II of
the Act. Therefore, the compensation should
be calculated in accordance to Schedule II. In
the present case, the Tribunal has rightly
done so.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any error in calculation
of the amount of compensation by the
Tribunal, which is in accordance to the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation (supra). In the
result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
However, dismissal of the present appeal will
not affect rights of other parties.

8. The office is directed to remit back
the statutory amount to the concerned
Tribunal within four weeks.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2515 of 1992

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and other ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Kant Sharma
Sri Samir Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri Pankaj Mittal

U.P. Industrial Dispute Act 1947-Section6-(1)-Labor Commissioner issued recovery
certificate for much and more amount than
claimed-where
undisputed
amount