NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD . versus GURUMALLAMMA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 23-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
A 
B 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 298 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD . .. 
v. 
. ·GURUMALLAMMA & ANR. 
(ClVil Appeal No. 4644 of 2009) 
. 
. .. 
JULY 23, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ;] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 163A, Second Schedule 
- Fatal accident - Claim petition u/s. 163A by mother of the 
C deceased - Claimant 50 years of age - Income of deceased 
stated to be Rs. 3,.3001- PM. - Tribunal and High Court, 
accepted income of the deceased and applying multiplier of 
17 determined the compensation at Rs. 4, 78, 300/ - On 
appeal, held: Since the petition was filed u/s. f63A, 
D compensation ·to be determined by applying Second 
Schedule - Multiplier was not required to be applied -
Multiplier is applicable only in case · of disability and not in 
case of fatal accident ~ However, the income of deceased as 
stated by claimant, not proved, hence determined as· Rs. 
E 
24,0001~ PA. - Compensation determined at Rs. 4,22,0001-
- Compensation. 
F 
Ori account of fatal accident of a 22 year old boy, his 
mother (respondent-claimant), aged 55 years, filed a 
. petition uls. 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
· The question for consideration in the present appeal 
· was whether Second Schedule appended to the Act was 
applicable in the facts of the case. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1. Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
was inserted by Act No.54 of 1994 as a special measure 
to ameliorate the difficulties of the family members of a 
298 
-
NATIONAL. INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. 
299 
- GURUMALLAMMA & ANR. 
..,,.. 
deceased who died in use of a motor vehicle. It contains A 
a non-obstante clause. It makes the owner of a motor 
vehicle or the authorized insurer liable to pay in the case 
of death, the amount of compensation as indicated in the 
Second Schedule to his legal heirs. The Second 
Schedule provides for the amount of compensation for B 
third party Fatal Accident/Injury Cases Claims. It provides 
for the .age of the victim and also provides for the 
multiplier for arriving at the amount of compensation 
which became payable to the heirs and legal 
representatives of the deceased depending upon his c 
annual income. The Second Schedule furthermore 
provides that in a case of fatal accident, the amount of 
claim shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the 
expenses which the victim would have incurred upon 
himself, had he been alive. It provides for the amount of 0 
minimum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It furthermore 
provides for payment of general damages as specified in 
Note 3 thereof. [Para 7] [302-D-G] _ 
2. Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case 
~ -
of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only E 
in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would 
appear from Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule. 
Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the 
present case and the income of the deceased is taken to 
-... 
be Rs'.3,~00/- per month, the amount of compensation 
F 
payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000/- to 
Rs.7 ,60,000/-. As the Second Schedule provides for a 
structured formula, the question of determination of 
payment of compensation by application of judicial mind 
which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out G 
of a claim petition filed u/s. 166 would not arise. The . 
Tribunals in a proceeding u/s. 163A of the Act is required 
to determine the amount of compensation as specified in 
the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities. 
[Para BJ (302-H; 303-A..:C] 
3. The Parliament in laying down the amount of 
compensation in the Second Schedule, in its wisdom, 
8 
provided for payment of some amount which should be 
treated to be the minimum. It took into consideration the 
fact that a person's potentiality to earn_ is highest, when 
he ··Is aged between 25 and 30 years and that is why in 
case of permanent disability multiplier of 18 has been 
~ 
C specified. [Para 9J [303-0-E] 
4. The deceased was running a hotel. He was, 
therefore, having some income. No document, however, 
was produce.d in support of the statement of the claimant 
{the .mother of the deceased) that his income was 3,300/ 
D - per month. On what basis such a claim was made has 
not been disclosed. No document was produced. The 
deceased was not an income tax payee. Income of 
Rs.3,300/- might have been chosen so as not 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.