LexRESHMA KUMARI AND ORS. versus MADAN MOHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 2 S.C.R. 706 RESHMA KUMARI AND ORS. v. MADAN MOHAN AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009) APRIL 2, 2013. [R.M. LODHA J. CHELAMESWAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Motor accident - Compensation - Computation of - Multiplier - Additional income for future prospects - Deduction towards income tax as also personal expenses - Held: It is high time that the courts move to a standard method D of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses - In the applications for compensation made uls 166 in death cases where the age of deceased is 15 years and above, Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column E (4) of the table prepared in Sar/a Verma read with the relevant para of that judgment - As a result, there is no necessity for Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act - In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of s. 166 or s. 163A under which the claim for compensation has been F made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sar/a Verma should be followed - For determination of compensation in death cases, and for making addition to income for future prospects and deduction G in case of taxable salary, guidelines laid down in Sar/a Verma's case shall be followed - Further, with regard to deduction for personal expenses ordinarily the judgment in Sar/a Verma's case, subject to the observations made in the instant judgment, shall be followed. H 706 RESHMA KUMARI v. MADAN MOHAN 707 s. 168 - 'Just compensation' - Held: The expression, Just' A means that the amount so determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards. In the instant appeals referred by a two-Judge Bench for decision of a larger Bench, the question for 8 consideration before the Court was: "whether while considering an application for compensation made u/s 166, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule can be taken to be guide for determination of amount of the compensation." • c Answering the reference, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives choice to the claimants to seek compensation on structured formula basis as provided in s.163A or make an D application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-s. (1) of s. 165, uls 166. The claimants have to elect one of the two remedies provided in ss.163A and 166. The remedy provided in s.163A is not a remedy in addition to the remedy provided in s.166 but E it provides for an alternative course to s.166. The peculiar feature of s.163A is that for a claim made thereunder, the claimants are not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle concerned. On the other hand, by making an application F for compensation arising out of an accident uls 166 it is necessary for a claimant to prove negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. The burden is on the claimant to establish the negligence on the part of the G driver or owner of the vehicle and on proof thereof, the claim~nt is entitled to compensation. [para 10-11] [722-E- G; 723-A-B, E-F] Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra H 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A Nayan and Anr. 1977 (2) SCR 886 = 19.77 (2) SCC 441; Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another 1987(3) SCR 404 = 1987 (3) sec 234 - referred to. 8 Davies & Anr. v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 (1) All ER 657 and (2) Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. 1951 (2) All ER 448 Mallett v. Mc Monagle 1969 (2) All ER 178 - referred to. 1 ~2 The determination ,of compensation based on C multiplier method is the best available means and the most satisfactory method and must be followed invariably by the tribunals and courts. This statement in Susamma Thomas is equally applicable to the fatal accident claims made u/s 166 of the 1988 Act. In Trilok Chandra, the Court D considered s. 163A and the Second Schedule which was not under consideration in Susamma Thomas as s.163A was not on the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.