LexRESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS versus MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I [2009] 11 S.C.R. 305 RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS v. MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009) JULY 23, 2009 (S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] -. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939/MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: A B. c Section 110-8/Sections 163-A, 166, Second Schedule - Structured formula for determination of amount of compensation - Future earnings on the basis of life expectancy - Taking inflation into consideration - Having regard to the divergence of opinion and certain aspects not D having been considered in the earlier decisions of the ~- Supreme Court and particularly in the absence of clarification from Parliament despite recommendations made by this Court in Trilok Chandra's case, matters referred to Larger Bench. The common questions which arose for consideration in the present appeals were: E 1. Whether the multiplier specified in the Second' Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously F applied in all the cases? 2. Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects? Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1. Even prior to the enactment of the provision, viz. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, G 305 H 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A 1988, this Court following the decisions of the English ')"" Courts applied structured formula for determination of the amo.unt of compensation. [Para 9] [315-E-F] 1.2. So far as the question of loss of future earnings B on the basis of average life expectancy is concerned, this Court, having regard to the phraseology used in Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 envisaging payment of just compensation to the .victims and/or the ~ successors of the deceased, stated that any application c of a rigid formula may not be applied. [Para 10] [315-G- H; 316-A] General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and others, ~- (1,994) 2 SCC 176; l).P. State Road Transport Corporation. ~ D v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362; Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9; United ,... ~ India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 sec 281; Jyoti Kaul v. State of M.P., (2002) 6 sec 306 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak, (2007) 10 E sec 1, referred to. -' Mallett's case (1970) AC 166 : (1969) 2 All ER 178, referred to. 2. The compensation which is required to be -,, "' F determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. ·This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for G example death of only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. [Para 20] [324-C-D] ~ 3. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards H prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as .... RESHMA KUMARI AND ORS. v. MADAN MOHAN AND 307 ANR. possible should be based on certain principles. A person A may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another the nature of employment was such that he might not have cont.intmd in service; his chance of B promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or C guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. [Para 21] [324-E-G] Sar/a Dixit v. Ba/want Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179; Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 and Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif, AIR D ~ 1988 A.P. 99, referred to. Davies v. Powell Duffregn Associaed Colliers Ltd. 1942 AC 601 and Wells v. Wells [1998] 3 W.L.R. 329, referred to. 4. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitution in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as E • ¥ nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same posit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.