LexSANT SINGH versus SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 721 SANT SINGH v. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2882 of 2011) MARCH 4, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: A B ss. 163A and 166; Second Schedule - Claim petition c under s. 166 - Determination of compensation - Structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule including the multiplier- Applicability of - Held: Even if a claim is made under s. 166, the ptincip/es for determining compensation as per s. 163A can be used as a guide - The Second Schedule 0 can be used as a reference for determining compensation in a claim u/s. 166 - In the present case, the claimant-appellant (who suffered multiple injuries on his leg in a motor accident) was earning Rs.4,0001- p.m. which amounts to Rs.48,0001- per year - After deduction of 1!3rd for personal expenses, his E annual income came to Rs. 32, 0001- - As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the appellant was aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be applied and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4, 16,0001- - Further amount of Rs.5,0001- awarded as compensation for hospitalization, special diet, attendant and F transportation and Rs.22,2091- for cost incurred in purchase of medicines - Thus, total compensation amounts to Rs.4,43,2091-, which is rounded off to Rs.4,43,0001- - Compensation to be paid to appellant alongwith interest @ 9% by all the respondents jointly and severally. G The appellant-claimant was sitting as a pillion-rider on a scooter, when the first respondent driving a four 721 H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A wheeler came from the other side in a rash and negligent manner and struck the scooter. The appellant fractured his left leg below the knee and both the bones of his right leg. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor B Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant was 48 years of age on the date of the accident and claimed to be working as a Work Munshi and earning Rs.4000/- p.m. Considering the injuries suffered and treatment received by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,47,209/ c -with interest@ 7.5% .. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the High Court for enhancement of compensation and interest. The High Court enhanced the compensation amount by an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the High Court, the 0 appellant filed the present appeal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had completely failed to compensate him for loss of future earnings for which multiplier method was required to be applied as per the Second Schedule to s.163A of the E Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further that he was entitled to interest @ 9%. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. Though the present claim is made under F section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the principles for determining compensation as per Section 163A can be used as a guide. The Second Schedule can be used as a reference for determining compensation in a claim under Section 166 of the Act. [Para 11] [726-G-H; 727-A] G H United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. etc., v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others etc. etc. AIR 2002 SC 2607; Smt. Supe Dei and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2002) ACJ 1166 (SC); Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, SANT SINGH v. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS. 723 Geological Survey of India and another AIR 2003 SC 1817 A - relied on. Piara Singh & Ors. v. Satpal Kumar & Ors. Vol. CZCVl- 2 (2007-2) PLR 143 (P&H) - referred to. 2.1. Applications made under Section 166 of the Act B are to be determined based on the principles !aid down in Section 168 of the Act, whereby, the Tribunal must award compensation that is just. Hence, in the present case, compensation should be awarded on the basis of the principles contained in the Second Schedule to the C Act and thus, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not considering the same. The award of the High Court is _ thus set aside. [Paras 12, 13) [727-B-D] 2.2. The appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. which o amounts to Rs.48,000/- per year. After deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses, the annual income of the appellant would be Rs.32,000/-. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the appellant was aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be applied. E A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.