Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 163-A , Section 166

Compensation - Claim petition - Tribunal partly allowing petition under Section 163A of the Act for payment of sum of Rs.2,65,500/- with 12% interest - Tribunal permitting the petitioners to proceed with the petition filed under Section 166 of the Act - Orders of Tribunal affirmed by ld. Single Judge - Appeal against - Remedy for payment of compensation under Sections 163A and 166 are final and independent of each other - No claimant can pursue the remedies thereunder simultaneously - A claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both - Claimants having obtained compensation, finally determined under Section 163A of the Act precluded from proceeding further with the petition filed under Section 166 of the Act - Orders of the Tribunal & High Court illegal - Set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 168 , Section 173

Quantum - Fatal - Determination of just compensation - Deceased aged 39 years, officiating Executive Engineer - Claimants Wife and 3 children - Gross salary of deceased on date of accident was Rs. 2,680/- p.m. - Tribunal assessed contribution to family as Rs. 2,260/- p.m., applied multiplier of 18, assessed pecuniary damages at Rs. 4,75,000/-, deducted 1/3rd against lump sum payment and awarded Rs. 2,76,800/- On appeal High Court held claimants entitled to Rs. 4,70,000/- Whether High Court was in error in reducing by 1/3rd the compensation assessed after ascertainment of multiplicand capitalized with multiplier of 16 ? - Held - (Yes) - Deceased at the time of accident had stable job and had fair chance of regular promotion to post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer in due course of service - He had about 18 years of service - Having regard to prospects of advancement and future career, High Court assumed income of deceased at Rs. 5,400/- p.m., deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, assessed family contribution as Rs. 3,600/-p.m. - High Court took into consideration guidelines laid down in Susamma Thomas case which warrants no interference - However multiplier of 16 is on higher side it should be 14 - Claimants entitled to Rs. 6,04,800/- High Court clearly by 1/3rd the compensation assessed after ascertainment of multiplicand- Compensation awarded by High Court enhanced from Rs. 4,70,000/- to Rs. 6,04,800/- with interest at 9% p.a. - Principles discussed base on case laws.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 163-A , Section 168

Compensation - Determination of -Guiding principles - Court must be liberal as law must value life and limb on a generous scale -Concept of "just compensation" suggests ap-plication of fair and equitable principles and reasonable approach guided by principles of good conscience.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 163-A , Section 168

Compensation and damage - Distinction between -"Compensation" may include a claim for damage but "compensation" is more comprehensive - Damages given for injury suf-fered but compensation for atonement of the injury to put the injured as far as possible in the same position.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 163-A , Section 166

Compensation - Determination of-Structured formula as provided under second schedule under section 163-A to be applied in accident cases-Multiplier method appropriate in cases of injuries.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166 , Section 168 , Section 163-A

Compensation - Determination of - Claimant 30 years old at the time of accident and a painter by profession - Sustained disability at 33% in respect of right upper limb and 21% towards left upper limb and 20% in respect of whole body - Carrying those injuries bound to suffer loss of earning capacity - Total rejection of claim of loss of future earning by the Courts below not justified - Applying multiplier of 17 and taking yearly income at Rs. 36,000/- as accepted by the High Court total comes to Rs. 6,12,000/- Considering disablement of 20% loss of future earning determined at Rs. 1,22,400/- If added to compensation granted under other heads, total comes to Rs. 1,94,400/- i.e., lump sum Rs.2,00,000/- Interest allowed @8%.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Compensation - Deceased wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant No. 2 - Death in road accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck - Tribunal noted the monthly income of appellant No.1 at Rs. 15,416/- and on basis of clause 6 of Second Schedule of the Act took at Rs. 5,000/- per month - After deducting one third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15 found the amount of compensation to be Rs. 6 lacs but awarded compensation at Rs. 2,50,000/- only - Categorical statement of appellant No.1 that deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per annum by paintings and handicrafts - Tribunal did not consider this fact and even working out the dependency at Rs. 6 lacs, awarded compensation only at Rs. 2,50,000/- Impugned judgment and also award of Tribunal set aside - Compensation directed to be paid to the claimant amounting to Rs. 6 lacs with interest @ 6% p.a.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Compensation

Vehicular Accidents - Compensation - Dependants of woman dying in road accident - Not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of services rendered by the wife/mother to husband and the children - For awarding compensation some pecuniary estimate has to be made - Services require to be given broad meaning - Most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of house wife/mother with work of a skilled worker.

Found In:  Judgement

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166

Second Schedule, Clause (6) - Notional income of woman categorised as one third of income of earning and surviving spouse - Without properly appreciating the value of services rendered by the home maker and not based on any apparently rational basis-Services produced in home by the women for other members of the household - Important and valuable form of production - Possible to put monetary value to these services - Time has come for the Parliament to have a rethinking for properly assessing the value of homemakers and householders work and suitably amending the provisions of the Acct.

Found In:  Judgement