Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(12A), 162, 164B – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Hit and run case – 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 -- Such a scheme may contain provisions for creating a fund for such treatment.

-- Provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and 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.

(Paara 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 -- Dimond Cutting labourer – Disability assessed as 100% -- 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 -- Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100% -- Total compensation assed as Rs.15,98,000/- to be paid alongwith interest @ 8 % p.a payable from the claim petition.

(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)

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.

(Para 13)

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)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Award beyond claim amount -- There is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed -- It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to award just compensation -- Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a “just compensation” is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.

(Para 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Registered owner – Subsequent owner – Liability of -- Learned Tribunal did not commit any error in holding the registered owner to be responsible for paying the compensation, though he has been given liberty to take appropriate steps to effect the recovery from the subsequent owner concerned.

(Para 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 173 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 33, Order 44 Rule 1, 3(2) – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appeal as indigent person -- Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent? -- Appellate Court did not conduct any inquiry – On both counts, one, that appellant had not yet received the money and, therefore, at the time of filing the appeal she was arguably indigent; and second, that the statutory requirement under the C.P.C., was not met, the impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 17-19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Shortening of leg – Permanent disability of 10% -- Future prospects – Claimant/ injured 40 years old was doing work of shuttering in construction of buildings – Functional disability taken as 20% -- Accident of 2005, monthly income taken as Rs.3,000/- per month – 40% future prospects given – Loss of income comes to Rs.840/- per month -- Multiplier of 15 applied, loss of income assessed as Rs.1,51,200/-.

(Para 9-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Author of FIR not examined – Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions -- One of the passengers in the Tata-407 in her examination stated that Tata-407 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and further that tractor was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner which was coming from the opposite direction -- Both the vehicles collided and due to the heavy impact two ladies sitting on the tractor and one travelling in the Tata-407 died on the spot and that she along with other occupants suffered injuries -- Once the eye-witness of the accident was duly examined, there was no reason for the claim petitions to have been dismissed by the Tribunal --  Impugned awards set aside, matter remanded back to the Tribunal.

(Para 4-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company’s liability – False case and a hit-and-run case as ground – Eye-witness stepped into the witness box as CW1 and deposed qua the accident – CW2 reiterated the version of CW1 – No reason forthcoming for disbelieving the statements of the two eye-witnesses – Driver and owner of the Canter did not choose to step into the witness box to deny the averments on oath or to depose that the accident had not taken place – Appeal of Insurance company dismissed.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d), Order 14 Rule 1 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Territorial jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint – Framing of additional issue of territorial jurisdiction – Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for rejection of the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction dismissed -- Once on an application filed by the petitioner a categoric finding was returned that the Tribunal at Chandigarh had jurisdiction, the petitioner by insisting on framing of an additional issue qua jurisdiction cannot be permitted to get the question of jurisdiction reopened since the same already stood concluded.

(Para 2, 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Fake insurance policy – Onus of proof – Third party rights -- An application filed before SHO for initiation of action, nothing coming forth, about registration of the FIR or any other action taken, on the basis thereof -- Nothing on record, about the action taken by the insurance company against the agent, on account of questioned policy -- Insurance company failed to discharge its onus – Held, for all intents and purposes, this questioned policy, ought to be taken into consideration -- Moreover, the third party is not concerned in internal dispute between the insurer and the insured -- Claim can be maintained by third party i.e. the claimants against the insurer -- Award, casting liability on the insurer and providing to the insurer a right of indemnity, was justified.

(Para 12-14)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Split multiplier -- Deceased left with about one and a half year of service as on the date of the accident – Only argument of the appellant-Insurance Company that compensation ought to have been determined after applying the split multiplier method cannot be accepted – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case --  Driving license – Onus/ Liability of Insurance company -- Respondent no.1/ driver was proceeded against ex-parte before tribunal – In the criminal case, the driving licence was not produced -- Further steps were required to call upon driver as a witness and asking him to produce the driving licence -- No such steps have been taken -- Insurance company, cannot be absolved from the liability.

(Para 23, 24)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 157, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Insurance policy after death -- Liability of insurance company -- Insurance policy obtained after death was void and no liability arose against the insurance company to pay compensation as no judgment can be passed against a dead person -- Insurance company absolved from the payment of compensation amount.

(Para 10, 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of 1.5 years child – Notional income – Multiplier method applied -- Income of minor child is incapable of precise fixation – Tribunal assessed notional income of Rs.50,000/- per annum for the deceased and applying a multiplier of 15, granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants-parents, along with interest at 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization -- No ground to reduce the assessed amount of compensation – Appeal of Insurance Company dismissed.

(Para 6-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation  in motor vehicle accident case -- Agriculturist deceased -- Details of the land owned by the deceased, as well as, full particular and proof of the livestock were not filed -- Income of the deceased taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.

(Para 3)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Compensation of Rs.17,04,451/- along with interest @ 6% per annum awarded -- Due compensation was not determined under different heads -- Right leg from below the knee was amputated for artificial limb, no amount was granted -- Appellant was working as a welder, this aspect should have been given due consideration -- Global enhancement of Rs.3,00,000/- additionally granted in the interest of justice.

(Para 8-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Composite liability – Other tortfeasor not party -- Claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several -- Tribunal held that it was a case of composite negligence and since only one of the tortfeasors was impleaded as a party alongwith the insurer, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to claim only 50% of the compensation awarded – Said finding cannot be sustained, set aside -- Claimants would be entitled to the entire compensation.

(Para 7, 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Bachelor deceased – Since the deceased was a qualified person and had completed his course in BCA, Court deemed it appropriate to assess his income as Rs.15,000/- per month – Deduction to the extent of 50%, multiplier of ‘17’ would be applicable keeping in view the age of the deceased being 26 years at the time of the accident – 40% addition made towards future prospects -- Claimant-appellants 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 the claimant-appellants, being parents of the deceased, would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation of Rs.22,74,000/- awarded with interest.

(Para 5-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- 49% disability -- High Court granted compensation of Rs.4,98,329/- -- Injured was a TV Mechanic and the injuries were mainly on the right hand, however, it affects the day-to-day working of the claimant/ injured – While calculating the compensation, future prospects not taken into consideration – Compensation enhanced in lumpsum of Rs.4,00,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the High Court – Interest @ 7% p.a. awarded for enhanced amount from the date of filing of the Claims Petition till its realization.

(Para 2-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Permanent disability – Medical certificate – Reliance upon – Discretion of -- Medical certificate showed the permanent disability at 45% and the Tribunal held it to be unreasonable and fixed it at 14%, taking it to be reasonable – Certificate was issued after three years beyond the period of healing of any injury which could be expected in a human body – No reason for the Court or Authority to disbelieve such disability -- Discretion of the Court is always there if it is not fully satisfied with regard to the disability, like calling for a fresh report or even calling for the person to appear to assess; but no such exercise adopted -- Disability taken as 45%.

(Para 4, 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of government employee – Compassionate assistance by Haryana Government – Adjustment of -- Rs.31,37,665/- paid to the dependents of the deceased-employee by way of compassionate assistance -- Held, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune – On the death of the person in harness, owing to a road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government.

(Para 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Composite negligence – Second offending vehicle not made party -- Only 50% of the determined amount ordered to be paid to the appellants on the ground that the driver/ owner of the offending truck, involved in a head on collision, was not impleaded in the Claim Petition -- High Court has granted liberty to the appellants to file a separate claim for payment of the remaining amount from the offending truck – Held, High Court ought to have ordered the disbursement of the entire compensation to the appellants, with due protection of the right of the insurance company to have recourse, as may be available in law, for the recovery of the part of its liability from the driver/owner of the offending truck -- Appeal allowed in part.

(Para 1-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Court fee -- High Court enhanced the amount  to Rs.6,80,000/-, however noting that the court fee affixed by the appellant on the appeal was proportionately valued at Rs.3,00,000/-, the amount awarded was reduced from Rs.6,80,000/- to Rs.4,09,598/- -- Held, difference in the court fee could always have been made up on a direction issued to the appellant -- Even otherwise, the deficiency in the court fee is an issue between the appellant and the Court and cannot be treated as a ground for scaling down the compensation payable to a party under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Appellant held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum -- Shortfall in the court fee paid shall be made good within four weeks.

(Para 3-6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor/ Deceased was a B.Tech (Computer Science) student -- Notional monthly income taken as Rs.20,000/- per month and 40% added towards future prospects -- 50% deducted towards personal expenses – Amount of Rs.30,24,000/- awarded towards the loss of dependency – For loss of love and affection and loss of filial consortium, compensation of Rs.88,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, Rs.18,000/- on each for Funeral Expenses and loss of estate allowed -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR stating that a stray cow suddenly came in front of the motorcycle and all three fell on the road and injuries occurred to claimant -- In the claim petition a different version was put forward  that a cow suddenly came in front of the motorcycle and meanwhile, a car also emerged on the scene and the driver of the motorcycle and the car tried to save the cow – No allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver -- Tribunal dismissed the claim petition -- No illegality or irregularity in the impugned award has been pointed out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Driving License – Verification report – Proof of -- Mere producing of the verification report was not sufficient, without examining the official of the licencing authority before the Tribunal to prove the same and granting an opportunity to the owner and driver to cross-examine such a witness.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- No income proof -- Tribunal has taken it as Rs.1500/-, which cannot be faulted with – Monthly dependency taken as Rs.1000/- -- Future prospects to the extent of 40% given, being self-employed -- Under the conventional heads Rs.36,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate; Rs.48,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased; (Rs.48,000 x 4 = Rs.1,92,000) for filial consortium to the two children and parents -- Deceased being 30 years, the multiplier of 17 should be applied – Total compensation comes to Rs.5,25,600/-.

(Para 7-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 159, 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Accident information report -- Tribunal dismissed the claim petition since the accident information report has not been filed by the police holding that claim petition cannot be directedly filed before the Tribunal – Held, claim petition is to be preferred by the claimant-injured or the claimants before the Tribunal -- Additionally, the police is now under a duty u/s 159 to prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement claim -- Order of the Tribunal set aside -- Matter remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh.

(Para 2, 8-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of 10 year old child in the year 2010 -- Notional income of the deceased child taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum and multiplier of ‘15’ applied -- No future prospects are to be added -- Claimant-appellants 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 the claimant-appellants (parents) would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation assessed as Rs.6,99,000/- -- Amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

(Para 6-8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Tripple riding – Contributory negligence -- No evidence to show that the accident took place due to triple riding -- Argument by Insurance Company that since there were two pillion riders on the motorcycle and that by itself would amount to contributory negligence, rejected.

(Para 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased was 21 years of age was a graduate -- In the absence of any income proof he is treated as a skilled worker -- Income of a skilled worker at the relevant point of time was Rs.3,000/- per month -- One claimant i.e. mother of the deceased and hence a deduction of 50% ought to have been applied -- Claimant would be entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects -- Multiplier of ‘18’ awarded – Total compensation assessed at Rs.5,37,600/- -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum awarded on enhanced compensation.

(Para 10-12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Brother and sister as claimant – Permissibly of -- In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Siblings as claimant – Permissibly of -- Siblings of the victim were older and were married with their own respective families -- In these circumstances, they being dependent on the victim’s earnings is unlikely particularly when the victim resided separately -- Tribunal and the High Court should not have considered the three older married siblings, to be dependent on the deceased victim -- Compensation awarded to the married siblings is therefore found to be unmerited -- Appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as upheld by the High Court under the impugned judgment.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case --  Review of compensation – First Appeal -- Tribunal not considered the claim with regard to compensation to be awarded to the widow -- Award rectified by in review application -- Instead of allowing the error to perpetuate, the same has been rectified -- If the petitioner has any grievance, she has the option to file an FAO.

(Para 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Claim petition under MV Act -- Written statement -- Defence struck off -- Non-filing of written statement despite availing several opportunities -- Everyone has right of hearing and, thus, no one should be condemned unheard -- Since written statement is a basic document to substantiate the cause of a particular litigating party, petitioners should be permitted to file written statement -- Impugned order set aside, learned Tribunal would grant only one effective opportunity to petitioners to file written statement and the said opportunity would only be available to petitioners, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.5000/-.

(Para 1, 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 , 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Judgment of criminal Court is not binding in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -- Appellant/ claimant when stepped into the witness box before the ld. JMIC as PW5 did not support the prosecution case, he was declared hostile -- He was also confronted with his statement before the police to which he claimed that he never suffered the said statement to the police -- Other two witnesses who are the brothers of claimant also did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile -- They also denied to have given statement before the police – They did not identify driver of the said offending pickup vehicle -- Whereas while stepping into the witness box before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as PW1 he alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the same driver/ accused who was respondent No.1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Statement of claimant is self-contradictory and the same cannot be relied upon – Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal not require any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Amputation of leg --  Release of FDR amount -- 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.13,85,905/- was ordered to be deposited in the fixed deposit -- Petitioner is a major, aged about 31 years and has already suffered a lot on account of the accident and is looking after the education of her girl child --  Petitioner herself is also a well-educated person i.e. MCA and she has her own choice to live the way, she likes -- She intending to buy a house for the purpose of running a coaching centre to earn livelihood -- Petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid and remaining balance amount is yet to be paid – Court considers it appropriate to grant permission to the MACT  to release the FDR amount.

(Para 5-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Contributory negligence – In the case of contributory negligence, a person, who has himself contributed to the accident, cannot claim the compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in the accident, to the extent of his own negligence.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Composite negligence -- In the case of composite negligence, a person, who has suffered, had not contributed to the accident, but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons, in such case, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation, as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several -- Owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary to sue the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles -- Claimant may implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles or any one of them.

(Para 7-9)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Composite negligence – Both vehicle held liable jointly and severally -- Inter se liability of joint tortfeasors having not been worked upon, the petitioner-claimant, as such, cannot be deprived by working the liability of the insurance company to the extent of 50%, though, no observation, with regard to the same having been made by learned Tribunal -- Extent of negligence of the joint tortfeasors, in such a case, is immaterial for the satisfaction of the claim of the petitioner-claimant.

(Para 14)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- No fault liability – Driver of offending vehicle – Onus of proof -- At least, some cogent evidence should have been led by the claimants on their allegation of the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle -- Merely because the respondent no.1 had not filed a protest report against the registration of the FIR against him, cannot be an evidence of his driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, especially when he was acquitted of the offences – Claim petition dismissed, appellants/ claimants granted liberty to raise claims before the State Legal Services Authority for seeking compensation.

(Para 10-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Mechanic-deceased – Assessment of income -- Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased Rs.6,000/- -- High court reduced it to Rs.3,000/- per month -- In the absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration -- Fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared for and had claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs.200/- per day -- Where the MACT had referred to the evidence available on record and then arrived at its conclusion, the re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis before it – Order of High court set aside, award passed by Tribunal restored.

(Para 5-8)