Mact law on 163 a cases
anupam sharma
(Querist) 25 May 2014
This query is : Resolved
An accident occurred between a tractor and truck owing to sole negligence of truck. A state case ensued on basis of FIR got registered by driver of tractor wherein charges have been framed against only owner of truck and trail has begun. An MACT case was filed by family of deceased U/s 163-A of MACT Act which was disposed of by Award of joint and several liability between owners of tractor and truck. AN FAO has been preferred in High Court on these counts:-
1. The MACT decided case considering Sarla Verma judgment which was passed in case U/s 166 Act while the present matter was filed U/s 163-A Act and cut of 50% was done on income of deceased and not cut of 1/3rd as per second schedule.
2. Multiplier was fixed according to Sarla Verma judgement and not second schedule.
3. The age of dependants was also considered in addition to considering age of deceased at the time of death
4. Joint and several liability was fixed on both truck and tractor owners/drivers, while the dependants want to recover only from tractor driver/owner as the truck driver is dead and the owner has no means.
Few facts relating to case are that the tractor being a goods carrier had passengers although it was gratuitous ferrying on insistence of deceased.
The liability of tractor driver/owner has been fixed only on alleged reason of overloaded tractor which is not so in reality as evident from FIR and evidence of Pws themselves.
The family of deceased has been given one lakh from religious place from where the tractor was giving his gratuitous services.
There are many more earning members in family besides deceased.
Now, the question is a) do the above facts help the tractor owner/driver.
b) does not sarla verma judgment apply in cases of 163-A , even as guide?
c) is second schedule applicable strictly to cases under 163-A, without any other considering factors
d) is it prerogative of victims family from whom to recover compensation even if the Tribunal has fixed joint and several liability on both vehicle owners.
kindly help
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 26 May 2014
a. Yes.
b. Many latest judgments of apex Court are available on 153A of MV Act so there is no requirement of Sarla Verma judgment now.
c. No.
d. No.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 26 May 2014
I do agree with expert makkad ji. As stated by him there is tribunal of motor. Accident claim
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 26 May 2014
In the given facts, agree with the advise of expert raj kumar makkad ji.
anupam sharma
(Querist) 29 May 2014
the advocate for claimants state that it is option of claimant to recover compensation from either party as per latest SC Judgements. Also, I was wondering if contributory negligence can be awarded on claimants as it was fault on their part also to sit in a goods carrier (allegedly overloaded).. Kindly give inputs..
anupam sharma
(Querist) 29 May 2014
kindly cite some judgements which could go n favor of owner of vehicle who is not negligent.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 29 May 2014
