LexA.P.S.R.T.C. REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER versus M. PENTAIAH CHARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
;--
(
f.-
A.P.S.R.T.C. REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
A
v.
M. PENTAIAH CHARY
AUGUST 30, 2007
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
B
Motor Vehicles Act:
ss./63A and 166; Second Schedule-Motor accident-Permanent
disability-Assessment of compensation-PersOIJ aged 38 years met wi(h C
accident-Became permanently disabled and lost earning capacity-
Compensation awarded by High Court-Plea for interference by Supreme
Court-Held: Minimum compensation payable in a case of this nature should
be consideredfrom sufferings of disability undergone by the victim-Case not
fit and proper for Supreme Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under D
Art. 136 of the Constitution-Workmen Compensation Act, 1923-s.2(1)-
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136.
s. I 66-Compensation-Determining factors-Laid down.
Respondent, aged 38 years, working as carpenter in a company on a _ E _
monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-, met with an accident with the bus belonging to
appellant-Corporation while he was riding on a two-wheeler. He suffered
serious multiple injuries on various parts of his body and consequently
became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity. Respondent had
six dependants viz. his parents, wife and three children. He filed application
under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming damages. Tribunal awarded F
a sum of Rs.85000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a .. On appeal, High
Court enhanced the compensation by RS.1,62,800/- after applying a multiplier
of 15.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellant-corporation
that the correct multiplier applicable in this case is 12 and not 15 as appli~ G
by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
607
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 9 S.C.R
A
HELD: 1.1. The accident took place on 26.01.1995. A few months prior
thereto, the Parliament inserted Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by
Act 54of1994 with effect from 14.li.1994. The said provision contains a
non-obstante clause in terms whereof inter a/ia the owner of the motor vehicle
is made liable to pay, in the case of death or permanent disablement,
B compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule appended to the Act.
(Para 911612-D, E)
1.2. "Total Disablement" has been defined in Section 2(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to mean "such disablement, whether
of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work
C which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in
such disablement". {Para 10) (612-E, F)
1.3. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act evidently stands on a different
footing. The extent of compensation payable thereunder may vary from case
to case. Various other factors including contributory negligence, earning
D capacity, extent of negligence on the part of one vehicle or the other, are
relevant factors for computation of damages. Loss of property can also be
subject matter of the claim petition. [Para ll) (612-F, G)
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176; Dr. K.G.
E Poovaiah v. General Manager/ Managing Director Karnataka State Road
Transpprt Corporation, [2001) 9 SCC 167'and U.P. State Road Transport
Corpn. v. Krishna Bala and Ors., [2006) 6 SCC 249, referred to.
2.1. One fails to visualise that in a case of this nature a claimant can be
deprived of a reasonable amount of compensation despite the fact that he has
F permanently lost his capacity to earn and remains dependant on others besides
physical sufferance of such magnitude. (Para 13) {613-E)
.
.
2.2. This Court does not, however, intend to lay down a general law. The
minimum compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered
G from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. This Court is not
suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second
Schedule to the Act cannot and should not be altered but therefor there must·
exist strong circumstances. [Para 14) (613-F)
Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
H Baroda, (2004] 5 sec 385, relied on.
'
~.
f--
·-
~ -1-
A.P.S.RT.C. v. MPENTAIAHCHARY [S.B.SINHA,J.]
609
3. The present case is not a fit and proper case where discretionary A
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised.
(Para 16) [614-B)
CIVIL APPE~LATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3988 of2007.
From the fiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.