LexMOHAN SINGH versus KASHI BAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] t S.C.R. 277
>
MOHAN SINGH
A
v.
KASHI BAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009)
JANUARY 13, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
•
"1-
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
S. 166 - Compensation claimed for death of a person due c
to motor vehicles accident - Award of compensation - On
appeal for enhancement, Held: Multiplier adopted by High
·Court is correct - No interference called for.
In the present appeal, filed against the judgment of D
the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, appellant
claims enhancement of compensation awarded in a
Motor Accident case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. Although the Second Schedule is
applicable only in respect of the claim petitions filed under
Section 163A of the Act, indisputably, the same provides
for some guidelines. In a case where the deceased was .
above 25 years but not exceeding 30 years, in terms of F
the said Second Schedule, the multiplier of 18 is to be
applied. In the case of the deceased whose age was
above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplier
of 17 in terms of the Second Schedule is required to be
applied. The High Court, therefore, has applied the G
correct multiplier. The quantum of multiplicand, is not in
question. In a case of this nature, it is not necessary to
go into the larger question, viz., as to whether the courts
should apply the multiplier specified in the Second
277
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Schedule in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act.
[Para 11] [282-C-E]
1.2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
8 that the judgment of the High Court in applying the
multiplier of 17 need not be interfered with. [Para 13] [288-
B]
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and others,
C (1994) 2 SCC 176; Kaushnuma Begum v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9; United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281; Jyoti
Kaul v. State of M.P., (2002) 6 SCC 306; Smt. Supe Dei &
Ors. v. Mis. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. JT 2002
D (Suppl.1) SC 451; Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India and Another (2003) 3 SCC 148;
Kanhaiya/al Kataria and Others v. Mukul Chaturvedi and
Others (2005) 12 SCC 190 and Bi/kish v. United India
Insurance Company Limited and Another (2008) 4 SCC 259,
E relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 176
relied on
Para 12
F
(2001) 2 sec 9
relied on
Para 12
(2002) 6 sec 281
relied on
Para 12
(2002) 6 sec 306
relied on
Para 12
JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451 relled on
Para 12
G
(2003) 3 sec 148
relied on
Para 12
(2005) 12 sec 190
relied on
Para 12
(2008) 4 sec 259
relied on
Para 12
H
" .
....
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS.
279
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 105
A
~
of 2009.
From the Judgment and final order dated 13/7/2005 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur in Misc.
Appeal No. 1620/03, 1621/03, 1622/03.
B
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Apellants.
Umesh Babu Chaurasia and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant before us is the driver and owner of the jeep
bearing registration No. MP-04J 1824 which met with an
D
accident on 21.11.1999 having, collided with a truck. The
deceased Baima @ Bairam Gond, Ramgopal and Shankarlal
admittedly were travelling in the said vehicle.
3. A First Information Report was lodged. The heirs and
E
legal representatives of the deceased filed applications for
grant of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 {for short "the Act") which was marked as
Claim Case Nos. 76, 78 and 79 of 2002 ...
4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the ·rival
F
contentions of the parties, framed the following issues:
"1. Whether on 21.11.99 in the night at about 8 a.m. near
village Semri, non applicant No. 1 driving Jeep No. MP04
1824 and truck No. MP04K2028 driven negligently and
G
rashly the collision between the two vehicle occurred and
in the result Shankarlal died.
2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part
of both the drivers? If so, effect.
H
280
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
3. At 8 p.m. Jeep No. MP04J1824 was dashed by truck
No. MP04 K 2028 and the accident was caused, if so,
effect..
4. Whether appliExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.