judgment adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma (supra) and held that under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to just compensation. Supreme Court also made it clear in paragraph (20) of the said judgment in case of Sarla Varma (supra) that it was not dealing with the case under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which indicates that the ratio laid down in the said decision is applicable only to the cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Unless there is an amendment to the provisions of section, namely Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, it would not be permissible for the Tribunal to award the amount over and above one which is prescribed under the head of non pecuniary damages.{Para 48}
49. This court accordingly held that the Tribunal had committed an error in granting funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on account of love and affection which are not in conformity with the provision of second schedule. In my view, the said judgment of this court squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment. The
Tribunal thus could not have awarded a sum of Rs.23,25,000/- towards inevitable expenses in the impugned judgment and award contrary to Section 163-A read with Second Schedule. In my view, this part of the award allowing compensation towards inevitable expenses in the sum of Rs.23,25,000/- is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v/s. Chandraprabha and Ors., (supra) and above referred judgments and thus deserves to be set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2013
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kumar Aftab Nasim Ansari
