***

MACT -- Negligence -- In a claim under Section 163A, negligence is not required to be proved and it is sufficient that injury is reasonably connected with motor vehicle in question.

***

MACT -- Standard of proof -- Claim petition under Act to be decided on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt and discrepancies in record cannot defeat claim when occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by claimant stand established.

***

MACT – 100% Permanent disability – Claim under section 163A -- Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 determined compensation by drawing guidance from principles governing claims under Section 166.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Negligence -- In a claim under Section 163A, negligence is not required to be proved and it is sufficient that injury is reasonably connected with motor vehicle in question.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A -- Injuries sustained in accident -- Standard of proof -- Claim petition under Act to be decided on touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt -- Discrepancies in FIR, medical record, vehicle number or treatment papers not sufficient to defeat claim when police investigation, chargesheet and evidence on record establish occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by claimant -- Absence of perfect proof cannot be ground to deny compensation under welfare statute.

(Paras 7 to 19, 23)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 163A, 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Permanent disability -- Claim under Section 163A -- Claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and died during pendency of proceedings -- Strict confinement to Section 163A held not to serve interests of justice -- Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 determined compensation by drawing guidance from principles governing claims under Section 166 -- Compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- with 6% interest awarded.

(Paras 20 to 28)

***

MACT -- Mediclaim/ medical insurance -- Amount received under Mediclaim policy not deductible from compensation awarded by MACT under head of medical expenses -- Mediclaim contractual benefit flowing from payment of premiums whereas compensation under MVA statutory entitlement -- Principle of “double benefit” not attracted.

***

Precedent -- Conflicting judgments of coordinate Benches -- Judicial discipline -- Both the Bar and the Bench are duty bound to ensure consistency with precedent, disclose and apply correct law, and avoid per incuriam decisions in aid of an effective justice delivery system.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 166 and 168 -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Mediclaim/ Medical insurance -- Deductibility from compensation awarded by MACT -- Mediclaim policy contractual benefit flowing from payment of premiums and independent of statutory entitlement under MVA -- Amount received under Mediclaim cannot be termed “double benefit” merely because reimbursement relates to same medical expenses -- Deduction of such amount would unjustly benefit insurer of offending vehicle and denude claimant of fruits of insurance contract purchased from own resources – Amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation awarded by MACT.

(Paras 7 to 11, 15)

B. Precedent – Bar and Bench -- Conflicting judgments of coordinate Benches -- Judicial discipline – Counsel’s awareness of law and grasp on facts are their greatest assets, enabling them to distinguish judgments that may seemingly be against them and still secure a favourable order -- Court before which they are appearing may not be aware of the latest pronouncement, they must disclose the same to the Court ensuring consistency -- Entire burden cannot be placed only on counsel, the Court itself has an independent tri-fold duty, to apply correct law even if the Counsel does not cite the same, ensure consistency with precedent, and avoid per incuriam decisions – Both the Bar and the Bench are responsible for minimising the problems that arise in the face of inconsistent judicial opinion -- They are both constituents of the justice delivery system and must act to ensure consistency in law and reduction of pendency.

(Paras 14)

MACT -- Interest -- Rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum is reasonable and in accordance with settled judicial practice.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicular accident case – Interest – Held, rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum is reasonable and in accordance with settled judicial practice – Appellants held entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,00,240/- – Enhanced amount directed to be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

(Para 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation -- Liability of insurer – Deceased as passenger -- Breach of policy -- Onus of proof -- Onus to prove breach of policy conditions lies squarely upon the insurance company -- A mere reference to statements in the FIR or presumptions regarding payment of fare cannot be treated as sufficient discharge of this burden -- Insurance company failed to adduce any cogent or reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was a fare-paying passenger or that there was any wilful violation of the policy terms by the insured -- Liability fastened on insurer.

(Para 13-17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation – Tailoring work -- Housewife -- Notional income assessed at Rs.9,000 per month.

(Para 22-25)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization allowed.

(Para 27, 28)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of minor child – Deceased aged about 3 years at the time of accident – Multiplier of 18 applied as appropriate in cases involving minor victims – Minimum wages of skilled worker in the State of Haryana i.e. Rs.11,233.18/- per month taken as deceased’s income – Compensation awarded under conventional heads including loss of estate, transportation, funeral expenses and separate consortium for each claimant, with 10% enhancement after every three years – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization held reasonable.

(Paras 5–9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Liability in motor accident – Vehicle requisitioned for election duty – Bus owned by private school requisitioned by State authorities for Gram Panchayat Elections under statutory power – During period of requisition the bus dashed into motorcycle causing death of rider – Tribunal awarded compensation fastening liability on insurer – High Court shifted liability upon State authority requisitioning the vehicle – Held, where a vehicle is requisitioned for public functions and an incident occurs during the period of such requisition, liability ought properly to be borne by the requisitioning authority, and not by the insurer engaged by the owner for the vehicle’s regular and voluntary use -- Order of High Court affirmed.

(Paras 3-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury – Permanent disability / Functional disability -- Medical Board assessed 63% permanent disability -- MACT accepted same -- High Court reduced functional disability to 30% without proper reasoning or reappreciation of evidence, not justified -- Evidence showed partial blindness, cognitive impairment, and partial loss of range of motion and stability of the left knee -- Appellant-claimant’s ability to effectively discharge his pre-accident duties stands substantially and irreversibly impaired -- Functional disability/ Loss of earning capacity assessed at 100% -- Compensation enhanced to Rs.97,73,011/- with 7.5% interest.

(Para 19-32)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Accident by Jeep/transport vehicle -- Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) –Liability of Insurance Company – No material on record to show vehicle exceeded 7500 kg gross vehicle weight – A person holding a valid driving licence to drive a “Light Motor Vehicle” is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class, and no separate endorsement is required -- Insurance Company is liable to indemnify and pay compensation.

(Para 11-18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 -- Execution of decree – MACT award -- Limitation of 12 years -- Where the award dated 24.04.2000 was challenged in appeal and the FAO was decided on 14.01.2014, the execution petition filed on 16.03.2016 cannot be said to be barred by limitation -- When an Appellate Court passes a decree irrespective of the fact whether the Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses the decree passed by the trial Court, the decree of the trial Court merges with the decree of the Appellate Court – Executing Court rightly dismissed the objections regarding limitation, and the impugned order does not warrant interference.

(Para 5-8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Report of fake license – Admissibility of -- Legal Manager, in his cross examination, stated that he had never visited the office of RTO to verify the driving licence and the person who had visited was working in their office -- He further stated that he had not brought any application sent to verify the record -- Said report (Ex.RW3/B) is based on some verbal information having been received -- Nothing in writing which was produced from the RTO to even remotely suggest that the driving licence was fake – Contentions to exonerate Insurance Company rejected.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Future prospects – Deceased aged 46 years -- Appointment letter of the deceased (Ex.P4) clearly states that he was being appointed in the establishment in Officer’s Cadre on permanent basis -- In the absence of any contrary evidence having been led, no fault can be found with the addition of 30% made by the Tribunal towards future prospects.

(Para 9)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Age of the deceased – Reliance upon Post Mortem report -- In the absence of any evidence regarding the age of the deceased, the same has rightly been taken to be 46 years as per the post-mortem report.

(Para 10)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Loss of consortium -- Widow, three children and father of the deceased – Entitlement -- Parental [Rs.48,000/- x 3], Filial [Rs.48,000/- x 1], Spousal Rs.48,000/- (Total Rs.2,40,000/-) awarded.

(Para 14)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Widow, three children and father -- Deceased 46 years old – Permanent employee – Annual income Rs.3,39,280/- [Rs.28,273 x 12] -- Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.30,26,600/- -- High Court enhanced it to Rs.45,76,374/- -- Enhanced amount shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

(Para 3, 14, 15)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Negligence – Tribunal’s finding based primarily on the registration of FIR – Held, independent reassessment required on the basis of the material available on record -- Registration of FIR against the claimant cannot be treated as conclusive proof of negligence.

(Para 6, 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Negligence --  Acquittal order -- Additional evidence in appeal allowed – Said judgment has direct bearing on the finding of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal -- Though acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto establish negligence of the opposite party in civil proceedings, it certainly demolishes the foundation of the learned Tribunal’s reasoning which rested entirely upon the registration of FIR and pendency of trial.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(g) -- Negligence – Non-examination of driver – Adverse inference -- Respondent No.1/ driver despite contesting negligence, did not step into the witness box to depose on oath -- In such circumstances, adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn.

(Para 9)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Contributory negligence -- Accident occurred on hilly road and claimant was driving downhill, greater caution was expected from him – Failure to regulate speed and maintain adequate control contributed to accident – Principle of contributory negligence attracted – Respondent driver held primarily negligent but claimant held contributorily negligent to extent of 50%.

(Para 12)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Contributory negligence – Injury case -- Claimant aged 23 years suffered 45% permanent disability in right leg – Functional disability assessed at 40% – Notional income assessed at Rs.2,000 per month – Applying multiplier of 18 with 40% future prospects, loss of future earning capacity assessed at Rs.2,41,920 – Additional compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, transportation, attendant and special diet totalling Rs.40,000 – Total compensation assessed at Rs.2,81,920 – After deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence, claimant held entitled to Rs.1,40,960 with interest @ 7% per annum from date of claim petition – Insurance company liable to satisfy award.

(Para 14-19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Expiry of Driving licence – Effect of -- Licence expired on 05.05.2016 and the accident occurred on 20.08.2016 -- No evidence on the record to show that an application for renewal was filed within thirty days of expiry; on the contrary, statement of PW-3 (Criminal Ahlamd) confirms the absence of such timely renewal -- Driving Licence similarly corroborate that the licence was not valid for driving a transport vehicle on the date of the accident – Held, learned Tribunal, after a proper appreciation of the entire evidence, rightly concluded that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased, was a minor aged merely 12 years -- A minor, by virtue of tender age, is not engaged in employment, and therefore rigidly categorizing him as a “non-earner” would defeat the object of awarding just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Proper method of determining compensation under the head “loss of income” is to adopt, at the very least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in the relevant State at the relevant time -- Notional monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs.10,300, being the minimum wages of a highly skilled worker notified for the relevant period in the State of Haryana – Future prospects 40%, multiplier of 18 applied – 50 deduction towards personal expenses -- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- -- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- -- Loss of Consortium Filial :  Rs. 48,400 x 2 Rs.96,800/- -- Total comes to Rs.16,90,460/- -- Interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition allowed.

(Para 21-29)

MACT -- Assessment of income -- Pensionary benefits -- Widow continued to receive family pension after death of deceased -- Pension drawn by deceased at time of accident forms part of the income for determining compensation and cannot be excluded while assessing loss of dependency.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor accident claim -- Assessment of income -- Pensionary benefits -- Deceased was earning Rs.32,673/- per month from private employment and was also drawing monthly pension of Rs.5,839/- as retired Head Constable of Border Security Force -- Tribunal and High Court held that as widow continued to receive family pension after death of deceased, no loss on account of pension was proved -- Held, pensionary benefits cannot be excluded or deducted while determining loss of dependency -- Pension drawn by deceased at time of accident forms part of the income -- Total monthly income consequently re-fixed at Rs.38,512/- for determining compensation.

(Para 9, 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166(3) -- Claim petition under Motor vehicle Act – Limitation – Interim order / No Claim Petition should be dismissed as time barred -- During the pendency of SLP, the tribunal and the High Courts directed not to dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Matters ordered to re-list on 25.11.2025.

(Para 5, 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147, 149, 163A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – No fault liability/ claim -- Whether claim u/s 163A MV Act restricted to third party? -- Supreme Court Refers the Issue to Larger Bench.

--   A claim under Section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident -- This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under Section 163A dehors the statutory liability under Section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy -- It would override the provisions under Sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the M.V. Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum.

--   Dictum arising from the various decisions of different benches of two Judges is that the claim under Section 163A is restricted to third party risks – Section 163A, appears under the Chapter with the heading ‘Insurance of Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ – But the non-obstante clause is in suppression of the entire Act, the other laws in force and any instrument valid in law – Court doubted, the decisions of co-ordinate Benches of two Judges which now will have to be placed before a larger Bench -- Registry directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

(Para 16, 17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Deduction of family pension -- Since, the deceased was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any independent source of income, the High Court has rightly held that the amount being received by the widow as family pension had to be deducted.

(Para 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Consortium to parents/ Children -- Compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the parents awarded by Tribunal, upheld.

(Para 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Just compensation -- Rs.16,34,400/- with 9% interest awarded by Tribunal by adopting the functional disability to be 100% -- Age of victim was 22 years when he was rendered almost immobile by the injuries suffered in an accident -- A prosthetic limb would cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs and it would have to be changed in every five years -- Victim would require the change of at least five prosthetic limbs in his lifetime considering his age -- Provision of wheelchair would also take approximately Rs.40,000/- which also would have to be changed every five years -- Hence, the total amount of Rs.10 lakhs for the prosthetic limbs and another Rs.2 lakhs for the wheelchair would take care of the future wellbeing of the victim -- Insurance Company to pay an additional amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the victim with simple interest @ 6% -- Amount increased in appeal of Insurance Company.

(Para 6, 7)

MACT -- Pensionary benefits -- Deduction from salary -- Impermissible -- Pension, PF and other retiral benefits cannot be deducted while computing income or loss of earning capacity of victim.

***

MACT -- 78% permanent disability -- Claimant discharged from CRPF service due to injuries -- Pension could not be deducted from salary while computing loss of earning capacity.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident – Injury case -- Pensionary benefits -- Deduction from salary -- Impermissibility of -- Compensation in case of salaried employee is to be computed on basis of last drawn salary -- Pension and other retiral benefits being statutory/service benefits receivable independent of accidental injury or death cannot be treated as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction under Motor Vehicles Act -- Amount receivable towards PF, pension or insurance cannot be deducted while determining income or loss of earning capacity of victim.

(Para 19)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident -- Injury case -- 78% permanent disability -- Claimant, a 43-year-old Sub-Inspector in CRPF, discharged from service due to injuries suffered in accident -- Pensionary amount of Rs.15,247/- could not be deducted from salary of Rs.36,231/- while computing loss of earning capacity -- Claimant held entitled to addition of 30% towards future prospects -- Applying multiplier of 14 and disability at 78%, loss of earning capacity assessed at Rs.61,72,028/- -- Further amounts awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of amenities and future medical expenses -- Compensation enhanced to Rs.67,36,084/- -- Enhanced compensation payable with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization.

(Para 21-30)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Registered owner – Liability of -- Sale of vehicle – Effect of -- Contention that the auction had taken place on 23.06.1989 by virtue of which, the Indian Overseas Bank had sold the car in question in open auction to respondent No.4 and the accident had taken place on 18.12.1989 – When the accident (18.12.1989) took place, it was the Indian Overseas Bank who was the registered owner of the car -- Insurance Company had issued the Insurance Policy to the Indian Overseas Bank for the insurance of the car in question – Transfer of the car from the Indian Overseas Bank to respondent No.4 by the Registering Authority was done on 05.02.1991 – Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability.

(Para 2, 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Functional disability – Amputation of leg – Functional disability of 100% cannot be assessed only because he cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier -- It is not as if the appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return -- Injured was having a shop in Bazar Samiti -- Definitely, the disability would affect his income, and he would probably have to engage an employee in his shop -- Functional disability can be assessed at 60%.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Amputation of leg – Functional disability assessed at 60% -- Conveyance charges fixed at Rs.50,000/- -- For pain and suffering, considering amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs awarded – For reasonable period of bed rest at 6 months and for special diet and attendant Rs. 15,000/- per month awarded – Income loss for 1-1/2 months assessed at Rs. 19,624/- -- So far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as awarded by the Tribunal – Total compensation assessed at Rs.32,34,353/-

(Para 5, 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Tractor-trailer – Liability of Insurance company -- Trailer was being pulled by/ attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death -- Tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident -- Had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay -- Accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred -- Liability of the tractor/ its insurer extended to the accident -- If an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident -- No infirmity in the Impugned Order in fixation of liability on the insurer-Appellant for the accident.

(Para 11, 12, 19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased was Student of MBBS – Notional income @ Rs.70,000/- per-month -- MACT awarded Rs. 12,52,429 based on the minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs.7,774/- per month), even though the deceased was a second-year MBBS student, having cleared NEET – It would be fair and reasonable to assess the income potential of the deceased at the time of his death in 2019 as Rs. 70,000/- per month -- 40% added for future prospects – Deduction of 50% made towards self-expenses -- Applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation for the death of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,84,000/- -- Loss of Consortium for the two parents (Rs.44,000 × 2) = Rs. 88,000/- -- Loss of Estate Rs. 33,000 (Estate) and Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500 (Funeral) -- Rs. 1,07,13,500 with intertest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing claim petition awarded.

(Para 8, 11-16)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insurance company -- FIR against an unknown vehicle – Effect of – Mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/ claimants -- Police upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the car -- Inspection report prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector discloses a bent on the front right side of the bumper of the car to indicate that it dashed against something, which could have been the scooter of the deceased -- MACT’s Award fastened liability jointly and severally on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company -- Liability of the respondent no.1/ Insurance company set aside by High Court -- Owner has neither appeared before the MACT nor before the High Court and not even before Supreme Court despite valid service of notice -- Court left with no option but to presume that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle which was the cause of the accident had no defence to offer -- During the police investigation owner of the vehicle admitted to the accident in question having occurred –  Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside and the order of the MACT restored.

(Para 17--24)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence -- Learner’s License – Effect of -- B.D.O./ injured/ claimant had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence – Negligence is only a question of fact, when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident -- Mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver -- There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed -- Appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Amputation of both legs -- Accident occurred on 03.11.1999 -- Rs.16,00,000/- awarded as compensation – Simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the award given.

(Para 1, 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Father and the mother of the deceased were also claimants before the MACT and the mother having passed away during the interregnum itself shows that they were advanced in age and thus, the deceased, but obviously, would be presumed to have carried out the major responsibility as is done in such joint family, especially since the businesses of agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending – Monthly income taken as Rs. 15,000/- -- Total compensation assessed at Rs.35,66,600 -- Rate of interest increased to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, instead of 6% per annum.

(Para 11-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rule of evidence -- Under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply -- Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability.

(Para 13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased 16 year old -- Multiplier -- Deceased was studying in 11th standard at the time of the accident on 27.05.2013 -- Notional income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.15,000/- per month -- Future prospects 40% given -- Deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction would be applicable -- Claimants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium – Total compensation comes to Rs.24,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount awarded.

(Para 9-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 20 year old was a student of B.A. Final Year -- Date of the accident was 25.07.2004, the notional income of the deceased assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month -- Loss of future prospects 40% -- Multiplier of 18 applied – 50% deduction -- Claimant-appellant would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses – Rs.50,000/- awarded for Loss of love and affection -- Total compensation assessed at Rs.15,98,000/- -- Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

(Para 9, 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Consented compensation – Enhancement – Permissibility of -- Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court -- Despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party – Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,82,825/-.

(Para 9-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Split method of dependency – Deceased was to retire after 2 year of date of death -- Normally Courts and Tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgement of this Court in Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 INSC 506 -- Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded -- Deceased was a technically qualified person and people are generally healthy at that age and continue working even after retirement --  Compensation on account of loss of income while applying the multiplier of 9 by the Tribunal without applying the split method is the correct calculation on that account -- Future prospects @ 15% awarded -- Loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount of ?15,000/- each -- Consortium, there are three claimants, namely, the widow, one son and one daughter, they would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium @ ?40,000/- each.

(Para 2, 8-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)Section 166 -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case -- Mason -- From the nature of the head injuries, it cannot be held that the first appellant would have returned to complete normalcy and is entitled to loss of income only at Rs.100/- per day -- Appellant continued to suffer from disability such as memory loss, defective speech, etc. -- Tribunal concluded that the first appellant was earning Rs.450/- per day, then applied the multiplier for 70% disability loss -- Employability of a person with serious head injuries is a circumstance which ought to have been kept in the perspective for determining the loss of income of the first appellant -- Age of the first appellant, even assuming as 50 years, as contended by the Insurance Company, the compensation for loss of income and also loss for future earnings can be determined at Rs.7,50,000/ (lumpsum) – Total compensation works out to Rs. 12,09,017/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Father and younger sister as claimant -- Father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent, would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation.

(Para 15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Driver without licence -- Liability of Insurance company -- Driver and the owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation, as the driver did not possess an effective driving licence -- High Court directed the Insurance Company, to first pay the compensation awarded to the appellants and then, recover the same from the driver and the owner, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same – Court not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

(Para 16)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(12A), 162, 164B – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Hit and run case – Cashless treatment -- Golden hour treatment -- It is the obligation of the Central Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 to make a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour – It protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution -- It is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme -- Central Government directed to make a scheme in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025.

(Para 4-8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income Tax Return – Reliance upon – Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.

(Para 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligence driving -- Evidence of criminal case – Relevance of -- If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents is impermissible or inadmissible.

(Para 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Loss of one eye -- Diamond Cutting labourer – 100% disability -- Diamond cutting is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude -- Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes -- 65% as functional disability is insufficient --  Disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100% -- Total compensation assessed as Rs.15,98,000/- to be paid alongwith interest @ 8 % p.a payable from the claim petition.

(Para 7-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation  in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Carpenter – 74% disability -- It would be unfair to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker -- Minimum wages as applied to skilled persons is to be taken for the purpose of calculation of compensation, as on the relevant date would be Rs.8337.10 -- Loss of future earnings at 74% disability Rs.8337 x 74% = Rs.6,169.45, Annual loss of earning Rs. 6,169.45 x 12 = Rs.74,033.4 and applying multiplier of 14 Rs.74,033.4 x 14 = Rs.10,36,467.6 -- Future prospect 25% = Rs.3,50,158 – Treatment and Medical charges = 60,000/-, Pain and Suffering = 60,000/-, Loss of Income during treatment = 15,000/-, Attendant Charges = 15,000/-, Special Diet and Nursing = 10,000/-, Transportation Charges = 15,000/-, Loss of Amenities = 30,000/- -- Total compensation of Rs. 15,91, 625/- alongwith 7.5% p.a awarded.

(Para 7, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Delayed FIR -- Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected.

(Para 2)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delayed FIR -- All the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident -- Delayed FIR also, require a relevance -- Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report – Award set aside.

(Para 2, 3)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Future medical treatment -- Full-time skilled attendant -- Appellant would have to be under the supervision of a full-time skilled attendant -- Doctor (PW-3) has opined that the appellant suffers from severe apathy and has no control over the passage of her urine -- Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the appellant would be requiring medical assistance in the form of medicines, diapers, etc., so as to live a relatively comfortable life – Compensation enhanced under this head to Rs.5,00,000/- -- Attendant Charges Rs. 9,42,000/- awarded -- Total compensation under different heads comes to Rs. 50,87,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing claim petition till realisation.

(Para 49-52)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Multiplier method for 13 year old deceased -- Accident on 15.03.2016 -- Notional income taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 applied --- No addition towards loss of future prospects is to be made -- Claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase) each towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation comes to Rs.9,78,000/-.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident --  Acquittal of the Driver in a Criminal Case cannot be a ground for dismissal of the Claim before the Accident Tribunal – Held, accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Offending Vehicle by the Respondent.

(Para 11-18)

Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 124, 124A -- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (54 of 1987), Section 16 -- Compensation in railway accident case – Fixed deposit for major claimant – Permissibility of -- 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal ordered to be kept in fixed deposits even though appellant No.1 is major -- Amount awarded to the claimants apart from that awarded to the minors ordered to be released -- Amount of award in favour of the minors/ appellants shall remain invested in the Fixed Deposits till they attain age of majority.

(Para 1, 2)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Truck hit scooty from back side -- Contributory negligence – Plea of -- No evidence produced in regard to allegation of contributory negligence -- Case pleaded that on being hit by the truck from the back side, the deceased had fallen and came under the front wheel of the truck, which is possible -- Contention of the insurance company that there was contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be repelled only and accordingly repelled.

(Para 18-21)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future loss of income -- Future prospects -- Compassionate appointment to dependent – Effect of – Deceased was getting Rs.34,351/- at the time of accident, son of the deceased was appointed on a remuneration of about Rs.12000-13,000/-, therefore, firstly it cannot be said that there was no loss of income to the family – Secondly, compassionate appointment cannot be equated with the future prospect – Contention that the claimants are not entitled for the future prospects on the ground of 58 years of age deceased is misconceived and not tenable because the death of bread earner of family is always loss to the family, who would have contributed to the family in future and his earnings may have increased in any manner.

(Para 22-33)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 134, 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Enquiry u/s 134 of MV Act – Ground of -- Grounds of section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 is not provided u/s 149 (2), ground not available to the appellant/ Insurance Company – Even otherwise, once an enquiry has been held by the tribunal after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant/ insurance company, the plea of the appellant that since provisions of Section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 have not been complied, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation is misconceived and not tenable because it has no concern with the claim of the dependents and family members of the deceased.

(Para 34-38)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury in right hip joint -- 30% permanent disability -- B.Ed Student – Disability certificate taken on record as additional evidence -- Accident of 2009, minimum daily wages of unskilled labour was Rs.150/- -- Appellant being a student could not be compared equal to unskilled labour, her monthly income taken as 5,000/- per month – Admission in hospital for 43 days, loss of income during hospitalisation assessed @ Rs.167 per day comes to Rs.7181 – Age 26 at the time of accident, multiplier of 17 applied for 30% disability, loss of future income assessed to Rs. 3,06,000/- (Rs.5,000 x 30/100 x 12 x 17) -- Compensation under the heads of special diets, attendant and transportation assessed as Rs.50,000/- -- For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- awarded -- Total compensation assessed as Rs.4,38,081 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation, excluding the period of delay in filing appeal.

(Para 8-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Limitation of six months – Minor claimant – Effect upon -- Date of the accident 20.07.2020 -- Respondent/ claimant had attained the age of majority on 06.03.2023 and that the petition was filed on 25.04.2023 i.e. within one and a half month after attaining the age of majority – Tribunal allowed the claim as the claim petition cannot be stated to be time barred.

-- No law cited to show that in case a person is a minor at the time of the accident and is therefore incompetent to file a claim petition, then, he/she cannot file the same within a period of six months of his/her attaining the age of majority.

-- Additionally, Section 166(3) of the MV Act made applicable from 01.04.2022 and were not in force on the date when the accident took place i.e. 20.07.2020 -- No judgment cited to show that the said provisions would also apply to a case where the accident had taken place prior to the date when the said provisions had come into force.

Impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Vehicle not involved in accident – Stand of -- Onus of proof -- In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to any of the witnesses produced by the complainants that the vehicle as claimed by the complainants was not the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and that it was some other vehicle -- Final Report u/s 173 of the Cr. P.C. also stated that the vehicle as claimed by the complainants was the vehicle involved in the accident -- Therefore, the onus was on the Insurance Company or Owner/ driver to get the same disproved by either calling the Investigating Officer as a witness or by any other means to establish a factual position to the contrary.

(Para 3, 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fraud in policy – Onus of proof -- Insurance Company has not been able to prove that it had not received the money/premium prior to the accident and the only stand taken was that the insurance was fraudulently obtained -- Fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it -- For, it has to be proven in accordance with law by adducing evidence etcetera, the onus of which would also lie on the person alleging fraud -- Insurance Company’s liability under the issued insurance certificate/policy to cover the incident, cannot be escaped by alleging fraud.

(Para 13-16)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of – Requirement of -- In the eventuality of the persons knocking the door of the Court, by way of filing of the petition u/s 166 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish, rashness and negligence, on the part of driver of the offending vehicle -- Proof of imputation of rashness and negligence, on the part of driver of offending vehicle, is a sine quo non, for sustaining the plea for grant of compensation, while assessing the loss of dependency etc.

(Para 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of – FIR against the unknown driver – Appellants-claimants, ought to have examined the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses and nominated respondent No.1, as accused in a criminal case – FIR and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. simply tendered into evidence -- It is required on the part of the appellants-claimants to lead evidence of its own, with regard to the factum of accident and to establish the rashness and negligence, on the part of the offending vehicle -- No such, evidence has been led -- No sustenance, as such, can be drawn from the contents of the FIR and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C -- Claim petition dismissed.

(Para 18-21)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects -- Perquisites/ allowances -- House rent -- Flexible benefit plan -- Company contribution to provident fund -- Components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor.

(Para 6-10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Registration of FIR – Requirement of -- There is no mandatory requirement of law that the FIR should be lodged before filing a petition under Section 166 of the Act -- Claimants approaching the Tribunal have to prove the case before the Tribunal in accordance with law and irrespective of whether the FIR has been lodged or not.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Employee of insured – Whether third party -- Argument that the deceased was employed with the insured and hence would not be covered under third party insurance, deserves to be rejected.

(Para 7)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-mentioning of the name of the driver in the FIR -- Merely because the name of the driver was not mentioned in the FIR by itself would not entail dismissal of the claim petition -- FIR had the complete details of the vehicle involved and hence mere non-mentioning of the name of the driver cannot be in any way be held against the claimants.

(Para 7)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Unmarried major sister claimant – It is not a case where the sister is stated to be staying separately -- Sister, though major, was admittedly staying with her brother and in the claim petition it has specifically been mentioned that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family -- No evidence to the contrary has been produced by the appellant/ Insurance company -- Argument that unmarried sister of deceased could not be treated as a dependent on the deceased deserves to be rejected.

(Para 7)