A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137, 139, 145  -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- FIR author not examined – Non-reporting of accident to police by eye-witness -- Adverse inference -- Eye witness (AW-3) accompanied deceased to hospital in his car -- It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR -- High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to Police -- Failure of the respondents to cross examine the solitary eye-witness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part -- They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants -- High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of cross-examination of a crucial witness -- Statement of AW-3 does not suffer from any evil of suspicion and is worthy of reliance -- Tribunal rightly relied upon his statement and decided in favour of the claimants.

(Para 17-24)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Principle of evidence -- Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases -- Standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt -- One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.

(Para 22)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 101, 102 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Burdon of proof -- Rash and negligent driving by other vehicle – Defence of – Non-examination as witness – Effect of -- Adverse inference -- If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the other vehicle driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place -- Fact that he chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault -- High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof.

(Para 23)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects -- Deceased was 34 year old – Appellants are held entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, besides 40% addition in the annual income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’ -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is directed to recalculate the compensation amount accordingly -- Appellants are held entitled to interest @ 8.5%, as per the Tribunal’s award, on the entire amount of compensation.

(Para 4, 26)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – FDR/ Fixed deposit for Major claimants – Permissibility of -- It is not correct and proper to direct deposit of the compensation amount in a Fixed Deposit in the case of adult claimants – Discretion of the Tribunal to direct such deposits has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the individual facts of each case -- Petitioner is 34 years of age and has a large family to provide for, including 7 minor children range from 2 to 17 years -- Petitioner undertaking construction of a house -- Tribunal ought not to have disallowed the plea of the petitioner to release the amount – Civil revision allowed, amount ordered to be released. H.S. Ahammed Hussain’s case (2002) 6 SCC 52 relied.

(Para 5-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income @ Rs.10,000/- p.m assessed for the  deceased 34 years old professional driver -- 25% increase for future prospects added -- Deduction of 1/4th put on account of the six dependents – Dependency comes to Rs.1,12,500/- -- Multiplier of 16 applied -- Rs.40,000/- as consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses given to take the grand total at Rs.18,70,000/- -- Benefit of 6% interest also granted, which cannot be said to be on the higher side -- Award of the MACT not seem to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity which would warrant interference – Appeal dismissed in limine.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Disability of Driver 44% as per medical certificate and Tribunal assessed at 100% -- Taking into consideration the medical opinion, the claimant would no longer be competent to drive the car or pursue his profession as a driver – Court found it difficult to interfere in findings of the Tribunal assessing disability to the extent of 100% for computing compensation.

(Para 14-16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- Award does not indicate that the insurance company ever raised an issue with regard to its entitlement to enforce recovery rights against the insured for want of producing permit of the vehicle in question – No materials pointed out on record to prove that the insurance company ever called upon the insured to produce permit of the vehicle in question -- This apart, there is no provision in the Act that creates a statutory defence in favour of the insurer akin to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- In the given scenario, insurance company cannot derive any advantage to its contention from the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh’s case 2018 (7) SCC 558 -- Appeal fails and dismissed in limine.

(Para 17-19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Fake licence of driver – Liability of owner -- Once due care and caution has been exercised by the owner of the vehicle while engaging services of the driver, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the driver is not holding a valid driving licence unless it is to be proved that the owner was aware that the licence was fake and he still permitted the driver to continue to drive the vehicle -- In cross examination RTO/RW-2 stated that possibility of record going missing from the computer due to a virus cannot be ruled out and that earlier the record pertaining to the same was manual and the record has not so far been updated in the computers -- Offending vehicle was otherwise, validly insured – Appeal at the instance of insurance company, dismissed.

(Para 12-15)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-involvement of vehicle – Ground of -- Vehicle's registration number had been mentioned by the eye-witnesses -- Statement was recorded by the police -- FIR was registered within 3 hours of the accident -- Argument that the vehicle was wrongly involved, is without any basis.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income of the 45 years old deceased was taken @ Rs.10,000/- per month -- Addition of 25% made to treat the income @ Rs.12,500/- p.m. -- Multiplier of 14 applied and 1/4th cut was put to assess the dependency at Rs.15,75,000/- -- Additional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium was also granted, to take the total to Rs.16,45,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum -- Since the stand of the claimants was that not only he was working as a Driver but also working as Clerk of two advocates and was also selling milk and thus, sustaining a large family of five members, argument raised that monthly income assessed @ Rs.10,000/- was a higher amount is without any basis -- Appeal dismissed in limine. Pranay Sethi’s case, 2018 (1) L.A.R. 1 (SC) relied.

(Para 9,10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 1, 166 -- Object of the Act – MV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accidents who suffer bodily injury or die untimely.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Age of the claimant was 50 years 10 months and 26 days on the date of the accident not completed 51 years of age – Contention of Insurance Company that multiplier of '11' should be applied – Held, multiplier of '13' applied by Tribunal, while computing compensation on the basis that he was 50 years of age is as per dictum laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77 -- No intervention is called for -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of income – Children taking over business – Effect of -- Deceased was into the sale or trading business of water purifiers and not was manufacturing these water purifiers -- It cannot be said that the deceased had left some assets in respect of his business for his heirs to capitalise on -- In case the children of deceased, who were saddled with the responsibility of earning money, were able to do well in the business, it cannot be said that the income of deceased or dependency as worked, is required to be reduced.

(Para 8)

A. Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3, 4 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -- Expiry of driving license – Non-renewal of – Injury to driver -- Liability of owner – Once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself -- It cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking up whether the driver has renewed the licence – Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- Here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck -- Appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three years – Proceedings here being under the Compensation Act, the consequences are not flowing to the first respondent as the initial negligent person.

(Para 1, 15-23)

B. Liability of Insurance Company to pay First – Recovery rights from Insured -- While protecting the rights of the claimants by asking the insurance company to deposit the amount, the recovery of the same from the insured would follow as the sympathy can only be for the victim of the accident -- Right which has to be protected, is of the victim and not the owner of the vehicle.

(Para 21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Victims’ appeal – Insurance company’s contention on merit – Right of –

-- Insurance company has not come up in appeal questioning the High Court’s finding on the heads of compensation and quantum of compensation -- These submissions of the insurance company cannot entertain at this stage.

-- Forum of first instance or the High Court did not return any finding on the first appellant being under influence of alcohol – Insurance company not permitted to raise this plea at this stage.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – Future prospects – No deduction for personal expenses -- Appellant survived though at present in almost “coma stage” – Contention for deduction towards personal living expenses rejected – Assessment of Rs.3500/- as monthly income affirmed -- 40% awarded for loss of future prospects -- Compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earning comes to Rs.9,40,800, Rs.7 lacs for medical attendant (Bystander) charges and further treatment cost, Rs.3 lacs for pain and suffering, Rs. 1500/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities alongwith Rs. 68,000/- as expenses for medicines and treatment, Rs.6,000/- as transportation charges and Rs.500/- as damage to clothing awarded – 9% interest from the date of filing claim petition u/s 166 also awarded.

(Para 4-10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Perks and allowance of employee -- Perks and allowances payable to the deceased employee benefiting him/his family members have to be included in computation of his monthly income and amounts deducted on account of HRA, CCA, Medical Allowance, EPF, GIS, LIC, re-payment of loan etc. are not liable to be excluded in such computation of his monthly income -- Tribunal was required to make statutory deduction of income tax from gross salary of the deceased for assessment of his income.

(Para 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased had total annual income of Rs.4,21,668/- -- As per rates of personal income tax, no income tax was payable on income upto Rs.2,50,000/- -- Rebate upto Rs.1,50,000/- was permissible u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act -- After such rebate income tax of Rs.2,200/- at the rate of 10% on rounded off taxable income of Rs.22,000/- was payable but in view of Section 87 of the Income Tax Act, rebate of Rs.5,000/- was admissible in case of taxable income being less than Rs.5,00,000/- -- Therefore, no income tax was payable and the Tribunal did not commit any error in not making any deduction from income of the deceased towards income tax.

(Para 12)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased Government employee – Future prospects – Deduction for dependency -- Deceased aged 53 years at the time of his death -- Since, the deceased was permanent Government employee addition of 15% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Dependents on the deceased being two (claimants widow and son) 1/3rd of the income of the deceased was required to be deducted.

(Para 13, 14)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Split multiplier -- Deceased being aged 53 years would have retired after seven years on attaining the age of 60 years -- In view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttamma’s case 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 443 there cannot be any application of split multiplier of 7 and 4 to split income of deceased as assessed for 7 years and half of the same for 4 years -- Multiplier of 11 has to be applied to income of the deceased at the time of his death as assessed.

(Para 15)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Pensionary Benefits – Deduction of -- Pension payable to widow of the deceased is not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable -- Similarly, any ex gratia amount paid by the employer to widow of the deceased is not deductible -- Deceased was employed in Delhi Development Authority – D.D.A. has not enacted any rules similar to Haryana 2006 Rules extending compassionate financial assistance to the dependents of its deceased employees by payment of sum equal to pay and allowances last drawn by the deceased employee – Widow getting amount of Rs.13,660/- per month as family pension from the department -- Observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court (Shashi Sharma's Case Shashi Sharma and others, IV(2016) ACC 340; 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 569) in regarding deduction of the amount of compassionate financial assistance out of the amount of compensation were not applicable to the facts of the present case -- Tribunal wrongly deducted amount of Rs.26,67,168/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.35,56,069/- payable to the appellants/claimants.

(Para 17-22)

F. Error in judicial order – Disciplinary proceedings – Requirement of -- Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and in view thereof provides for appeals and revisions – To err is human and no one is infallible -- A Judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born -- No action is required to be taken against any judicial officer for bona fide error -- Unless there are clear cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary proceedings are not to be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the Judicial Officer -- Role of superior courts is like a friend, philosopher and guide of the subordinate judiciary and the approach of the superior courts has to be correctional -- No complaint or any other material to show that the findings were animated by any mala fides or extreneous considerations so as to warrant any reference for disciplinary proceedings against the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on Administrative side.

(Para 23)

G. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 7.5% rate of interest on compensation -- Tribunal directed the payment of compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the whole amount -- Rate of inflation, change in economy, R.B.I.’s lending rate of interest, rate of interest allowed by Nationalized Banks on fixed deposit receipts and other relevant factors, direction by the Tribunal for payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum cannot be said to be unjust/illegal.

(Para 24)

H. Error in judicial order – Prevention in re-occurring -- Sometimes erroneous orders with errors in fact or law are passed by judicial officers -- It will be appropriate that the Judicial Officers are periodically sensitized for preventing recurrence of errors committed by them and avoiding errors frequently committed by other Judicial Officers -- Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh directed to periodically compile cases involving such erroneous orders passed by Judicial Officers by obtaining the requisite information from Registrar Vigilance or Registrar Judicial of High Court and the concerned District and Sessions Judges and point out the errors committed to the Judicial Officers during the Induction/Refresher Training Courses organized for them while making dedicated efforts of not disclosing the particulars of the concerned Judicial Officers and the cases involved, although it may not be possible to maintain absolute secrecy about the same in view of the reporting of judgments of this Court and uploading of the orders on the website of this Court as well as the concerned District Courts.

(Para 27)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Compensation under heading ‘Love and affection’ – Justification of -- It is now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ -- There is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’.

(Para 34, 35, 40)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Compensation under heading ‘Loss of Consortium’ -- Whether it is only the wife who is entitled for consortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parents also – Held, apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable -- Impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants does not warrant any interference. United India Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (2020) SCC Online 410 relied.

(Para 14, 39, 40)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rate of interest on award – Court find infirmity in impugned judgment, where interest granted is of 6% which generally the interest being granted is of 9% -- Impugned judgment held liable to be modified – Appeal allowed accordingly.

(Para 5-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability of whole body, 31.1% -- Loss of earning capacity – Future prospects -- Injuries to the appellant were grievous including fractures in the arms and legs and she suffered a disability of 31.1% of the whole body -- Age of the injured/appellant was 23 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability -- Future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration – Future prospects 50% of the actual salary taken – Compensation assessed to the extent of 31.1% disability payable with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

(Para 1, 7,8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Motor vehicle accident case -- Claim by brother, sisters and nephews -- Maintainability of -- Where the parents of the deceased are not alive, his brothers and sisters, being his legal representatives, can come forward and claim compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident -- Nephews of the deceased, were not entitled to get any compensation.

(Para 19)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Motor vehicle accident case – Pleaded that the deceased was driver and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/- -- Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, while treating him as a manual worker – So, the claim petition was maintainable u/s 163-A of the Act – Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – Multiplier of ‘17’ should be applied, deduction of 50% is to be made towards his personal and living expenses – Funeral expenses assessed at Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate as Rs.15,000/- and compensation on account of loss of consortium, declined as the same is available only to the spouse – Compensation for future prospects assessed at Rs.9,600/- for 2 years – Total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.2,43,600/-.

(Para 20-24)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Assessment of notional income –Proceedings for 22 years -- Compensation with 12% interest p.a. -- Income of the deceased in 1984 was 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998, which is 15 years after he shifted to Doha – He was evidently doing fairly well, by taking an increment of 10% per annum from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the deceased could be fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m., which can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. -- In 1998, 1 Qatari Riyal was equivalent to 12.41 INR, income of the deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 = Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. -- 50% of the income of the deceased deducted towards personal expenses, since he was living in a foreign country – Future prospects @30% and multiplier of 15 given -- For loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000, Loss of Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000, Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 and Funeral Expenses, Rs. 15,000/- awarded – Total compensation to be paid comes to be Rs. 39,65,125/- -- After deducting for 50% contributory negligence amount payable comes to Rs.19,82,563/- -- Since dependents have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since past 22 years, interest @ 12% p.a. awarded from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation.

(Para 3, 9-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 4, 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Invalid driving license – Breach of policy – Onus of proof – Recovery right -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(Para 1, 14-17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 142 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependent -- A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department shows that the date of filing the ITR was prior to the death of the deceased -- Hence, the High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07 while assessing the income of the deceased -- ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 reflects the income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. made basis for computing the compensation – Future prospects 40% and deduction towards his personal expenses made by 1/4th -- Multiplier adopted at 16 is appropriate -- Under the conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- (Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- + Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- + Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-) awarded – Total compensation comes to Rs.17,50,000/- -- Though the claimant did not file appeal before the High Court, Supreme Court by exercising powers under Article 142 enhanced the same to do complete justice between the parties – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. awarded from date of filing the claim petition.

(Para 1, 7,8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Injury case – Expert evidence -- Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was aged 50 years 3 months – Dependency of -- Multiplier of 13 awarded by Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, maintained by High Court – However, High Court reduced the future prospects at 15% from 30% -- Held, High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30% -- Award of Tribunal restored.

(Para 5-9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case -- Loss of Consortium -- Loss of love and affection – Besides loss of dependency compensation, Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife, Rs.3,00,000/- for all the appellants i.e. wife and two sons towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses – High Court reduced amount payable to wife by Rs. 1 lac for love and affection and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.2,00,000/- towards of love and affection to the children; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body -- Held, taking into account facts and circumstances of the case, such grant of Rs.1,00,000/- ought not have been reduced by the High Court – Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same was interfered with by the High Court without any valid grounds, as such, Judgment of High Court set aside and award passed by the Tribunal restored.

(Para 3, 5-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Amputation of leg -- Physical Functional disability – Consideration of -- Physical functional disability of the left leg was assessed at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% -- Earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced – It is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body -- Appellant is held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability.

(Para 6, 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future medical expenses -- Amputation of leg -- Appellant would require three more replacements of the artificial left leg during his lifetime – High Court erred in granting Rs.50,000/- only for future medical expenses – Amount enhanced by Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to that granted by the High Court.

(Para 8, 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability to pay – Agreement between Transport Corporation and owner of Bus regarding liability on account of accident – Effect of – Held, it is only between the Corporation and the bus owner and does not bind anybody who is not privy to the aforesaid agreement, least of all, the victim -- Sum awarded by the MACT will be payable only by the Insurance Company with interest.

(Para 6,7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Married sons -- Dependency of – No evidence on the record to controvert the statement to the effect that all three appellants-claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased -- No reasoning given by the Tribunal except that they were married and had children – Held, in the absence of any evidence having been led by the respondents to the contrary, all three appellants were dependent on the deceased and hence, would be entitled to an equal amount of compensation.

(Para 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor Vehicle Accident case – Place of residence -- Jurisdiction of -- No bar in filing a claim petition where the claimants reside at the time of filing of the petition -- Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and the provision in question is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents due to negligent driving -- Hyper-technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated.

(Para 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Injury in motor vehicle accident – Disability of -- Non-examination of doctor – No doctor has been examined qua the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Award is also silent as to the nature of the injuries which have been suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, Court deemed it just and proper to remand the present case to the Tribunal to be decided afresh -- Parties shall be at liberty to lead fresh evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

(Para 7,8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor vehicle accident case -- Registered owner – Sale of vehicle – Liability of -- Appellant has led sufficient evidence on record, which shows that the vehicle in question was indeed sold to the respondent no.7 -- Contents of the affidavit Ex.R-2 are not denied and neither is it denied that the offending vehicle was taken on Superdari by respondent no.7 – Appellant-registered owner has been rightly held liable to pay the compensation, however appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the respondent no. 7 after satisfying the claim.

(Para 1,4,8-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Assessment of income of deceased – Minimum wages -- Deceased about 40 years aged was working as a Scrap Dealer resident of Kaithal, Haryana -- Accident took place on 28.08.2018, in this part of the country, a unskilled construction labourer charges more than Rs.400/- per day – Rs.12,000/- p.m. assessed by MACT, upheld.

(Para 9,14)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case u/s 163-A – Role of negligence -- Sole submission by Insurance company that as the deceased himself contributed to the happening of accident, claimants are not entitled for compensation to the negligence attributed to the deceased – Held, contention is not meritorious because in a claim filed u/s 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal cannot examine if the occurrence is result of default or neglect of victim or deceased – Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.

(Para 11-14)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Contributory negligence -- Three persons on motor cycle -- Motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling, was hit by the car from behind and that therefore it was clear that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car – At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law – Such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim -- Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.

(Para 12-14, 29)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident -- Employed in a proprietary concern on a monthly salary of Rs.9600/- -- Sole proprietor of the concern was examined and the salary certificate was marked -- Tribunal which had the benefit of recording the evidence and which consequently had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witness, specifically recorded a finding that there was no reason to discard the testimony – High Court proceeded to take the minimum wages paid for the unskilled workers at the relevant point of time as the benchmark – Held, High Court ought not to have chosen a theoretical presumption relating to the minimum wages fixed for unskilled employment -- Interference made by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, was uncalled for -- Order of High Court set aside and award of the Tribunal restored.

(Para 15-18, 29)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased was 23 years old -- Dependent is aged 90 years – Multiplier for dependency -- Age of deceased is relevant – Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18, on the basis of the age of the deceased -- Munna Lal Jain’s case, JT 2015 (5) SC 1 is binding in a case of this nature -- High Court committed a serious error in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 18 – Order of High Court set aside and award of the Tribunal restored.

(Para 19-29)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Motor vehicle accident case – Third party – No fault liability – Deceased/Driver borrowed vehicle met with accident – Claim against owner/Insurance company – Maintainability of – Deceased cannot be said to be third party and cannot maintain a claim u/s 163-A of the Act as deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle -- Claim petition u/s 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company shall not be maintainable -- Claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh only as per the terms of the contract of insurance with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

(Para 5.4-6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Package/comprehensive policy -- Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants. Balakrishnan’s case 2013 ACJ 199 relied.

(Para 7-9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Death of student -- Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Taking a clue from notification issued by the State of Haryana fixing minimum wage at the relevant time coupled with educational qualification of the deceased, income of deceased is assessed at Rs. 4800/- per month -- Claimants shall be entitle to addition in income for future prospects @ 40% -- Admissible multiplier and deduction for personal expenses is 18 and 50% respectively -- Loss of dependency is Rs. 7,25,760/- [4800 x12x18 + (40% thereof) – 50%)] – Expenses on funeral Rs.15,000/- and Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- given – Payable with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, to mother of the deceased, to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year.

(Para 12-14)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Comprehensive policy -- Deceased was driving motorcycle – Claim petition against owner of motorcycle / Insurance company – Held, the instant policy being a comprehensive policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

(Para 1,2,13,19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income of deceased -- No income proof -- State of Haryana fixed minimum wage vide notification at the relevant time, income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.6000/- per month.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 9, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Driver of offending vehicle resident of Amritsar – Driving License from Nagaland – Validity of -- Submission by insurance company that since driver belongs to Amritsar, he was not competent to submit an application before an authority in Nagaland for issuance of licence -- Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(Para 5, 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – No witness from Licensing authority examined – Effect of -- Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(Para 4-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in Motor Vehicle accident case -- Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Liability of Insurance Company -- Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Third party Policy -- Pillion rider – Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance Company – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(Para 2, 18, 34)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Deceased, self-employed person aged 37 years -- Minimum wage of Rs. 8,220/- per month taken -- 40% loss of future prospects assessed – 1/4^th deduction made towards personal expenses made (Four claimants) -- Multiplier of 15 applied -- Under 'conventional heads', Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium (including filial consortium), Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites assessed -- Total compensation payable is Rs. 16,23,580/- -- Said compensation would carry an interest of 6% per annum, running from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of realization thereof.

(Para 1, 24,25)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Minor driver – Recovery right to Insurance Company -- Employed driver gave the vehicle to minor without consent of the owner – Effect of – Insurance Company was not given right to recover the compensation amount from the owner by the M.A.C.T. – Order upheld.

(Para 11-13)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Head on collision – Contributory negligence – Proof of -- FIR was registered on the very next day at the instance of PW-2 -- It was specifically recorded that the offending vehicle was coming on wrong side and hit the car from front -- Evidence produced by the claimants was not rebutted by the insurer -- In cases under the Act, onus of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases -- Claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Held, claimants have been able to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle.

(Para 10-12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Driving license – Validity of -- Onus to prove – Onus to prove that the driving licence was not valid on the day of accident or there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is on the insurer.

(Para 14)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor vehicle accident compensation -- 73 year old Father – Dependency of -- Deceased was survived by widow, two minor children and old father aged 73 years -- The widow-PW-1 specifically stated in her deposition that age of her father-in-law is 73 years -- Considering the age of father, it cannot be held that father was not dependent upon the earnings of his son – 1/4^thdeduction made for self-expenses upheld.

(Para 15)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Deceased was 45 years 02 months and 05 days – Multiplier of -- He is to be considered as 45 years and not 46 years -- As the deceased was 45 years and not completed the 46, multiplier of '14' is applied.

(Para 17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case -- Ex-gratia payment to deceased by employer – Deduction of -- Not been shown if the ex gratia amount received by the claimants had been under any Rules of service and would be of continuous assistance – No deduction appears necessary.

(Para 12-12.2)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Standard of proof -- Preponderance of probability -- In motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties -- Standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.

(Para 20)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Witness – Non-examination of -- Inability of the witness to identify the age of the pillion rider cannot, per se, be a militating factor to discard his entire version -- Approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non-examination of some “best” eye witness in the case but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability -- Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the identity of the parties involved in the accident.

(Para 30, 31)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Deceased having wife, two minor children, aged father – Dependency assessed as 60% after deducting 40% for personal expenses – Compensation order to be given with 8% interest from the date of filing claim petition.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 -- Just compensation – Less compensation claimed – Court can award more than claimed – Held, there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount -- A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record -- It cannot become timebarred -- Courts are duty bound to award just compensation.

(Para 6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 1, 166 -- Object of the Act -- Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely -- Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident.

(Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 158(6), 166(4) – Claim case in motor vehicle accident case – Duty of police incharge – Power of Tribunal -- Section 158(6) casts a duty on the officer incharge of the police station to forward a copy of the information (FIR)/report regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person within 30 days from the date of information to the Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction and also send one copy to the concerned insurer -- Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the report of the accident on its receipt as if it is an application made by the claimant for award of the compensation to him under the Act by virtue of Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction to decide such application on merits in accordance with law.

(Para 17, 18)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 163-A -- Motor vehicle accident claim case – No-fault liability -- There are three Sections, which empower the Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163A and Section 166 of the Act -- Section 140 deals with the cases for award of compensation based on the principle of no fault liability -- Section 163A of the Act deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation and is based on structured formula as specified in Second Schedule appended to the Act -- While claiming compensation payable under Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person concerned against whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A (2) of the Act.

(Para 20-23)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168, 169 – Claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act – Nature of -- Claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself.

(Para 24)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Claim petition in Motor vehicle accident -- Non-exhibition of documents before Tribunal – Effect of – Held, Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in dismissing the appellants’ claim petition -- Appellants’ claim petition ought to have been allowed for awarding reasonable compensation to the appellants in accordance with law for the following reasons –

First, the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad.

Second, the appellants filed material documents to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein.

Third, the documents clearly established the identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of the offending Truck, the period of coverage of insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the accident.

Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore, neither contested the appellants’ claim petition nor entered into the witness box to rebut the allegations of the appellants made in the claim petition and the evidence. An adverse inference against both could be drawn.

Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they also did not examine any witness to rebut the appellants’ evidence. The Insurance Company could have adduced evidence by examining the driver of the offending Truck as their witness but it was not done.

Sixth, on the other hand, the appellants examined three witnesses and thereby discharged their initial burden to prove the case.

Seventh, if the Court did not exhibit the documents despite the appellants referring them at the time of recording evidence then in such event, the appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim the compensation on such ground.

it was nothing but a procedural lapse, which could not be made basis to reject the claim petition. It was more so when the appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove their case and the respondents did nothing to counter them.

(Para 25-33)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident -- Just compensation – Concept of -- “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants -- Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance with the Act -- The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude -- The Courts must interpret the word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependents of the deceased -- One must also remember that compensation can be paid only once and not time and again.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident -- Just compensation – Other pecuniary benefits outcome or result of death – Deduction not permissible -- Law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased -- Claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident -- Advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.

(Para 12)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident -- Life Insurance – Deduction is not permissible -- Deceased paid premium on life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death -- Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc. -- Tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.

(Para 13)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – Pension and Gratuity -- Deduction is not permissible -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(Para 14)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – Deduction from -- Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

(Para 16)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – EFB Scheme Monthly Payment – Deduction of – Future prospects -- Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(Para 21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Unskilled worker – Future prospects -- Nature of his employment being taken as a self-employed person -- Deceased was unmarried 24 years old – Old Father and unmarried sister – Dependency of --

--       Future Prospects of 40% given.

--       Deduction towards personal expenses -- Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, unmarried sister, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased affirmed.

--       Income above minimum wages -- High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- Finding affirmed.

--       Love and affection -- Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection warded by High Court, affirmed.

–       Funeral expenses -- Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000.

--       Loss of Estate – Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation -- Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant – In exercise of power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister.

--       Loss of Consortium -- An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister each granted.

--       Interest – Total compensation awarded Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(Para 8-9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Father and Sister – Dependency of -- Deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him -- Deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister -- Deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival -- Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.

(Para 8.4)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Finding of Tribunal – Possible view – Setting aside of -- Tribunal duly considered the evidence and the material accompanying the charge-sheet filed, as also the plea taken by the insurer and the evidence of RW-1 – Held, conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible view, which could not have been disturbed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the insurer.

 (Para 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Liability of insurance company -- Even assuming that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation, as the offending tractor was duly insured, the insurer would be still liable to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle owner. National Insurance Co.’s case 2004 (3) SCC 297 relied.

(Para 10,11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 14(2) -- Validity of licence till 29.4.2011 -- Reliance on the testimony of RW-1 (Licence Clerk) solely based on a register could not have been the basis of a finding that the expiry date of the license was 26.02.2003 -- It is also not a mere question of the dates mentioned in the licence but those dates ought to have tallied with the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the said Act -- Licence would not have been issued for 5 years when the driver was only about 37 years but would be issued for a period of 20 years or 50 years of age, whichever was earlier -- Since the petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 30.04.2011, the license mentioned the expiry date as 29.04.2011 -- Court clearly fell into an error in doubting that the licence was valid on the date of the accident – Order of recovery from appellant is set aside.

(Para 2,8,10,11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was 23 years of age and his parents were in the age group of 40 to 45 years – Multiplier of 18 applied, compensation worked out to Rs.6,80,400/- -- Rate of interest modified to 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunal and High Court.

(Para 2,5,6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appellate Court jurisdiction -- Appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law -- That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal -- As is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well considered opinion and a plausible view -- High Court has not adverted to any specific reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not supported by the evidence on record – Nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts – Finding of the Tribunal restored.

(Para 8-10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Parking in the middle of road – Negligence of -- Tribunal adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road -- Site Plan reinforces the version -- Site Plan filed along with the chargesheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was not parked in the middle of the road – Approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse – Finding of the Tribunal restored.

(Para 8-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income Tax Return – Reliance upon -- Loss of taxable earning should be reckoned for the purpose of determining just compensation -- Computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return was annual taxable income was Rs.77,480/- (rounded off) and income tax due thereon was Rs.4,496/- -- After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head ‘loss of income’ of the appellant would be Rs.72,984/-. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.(2008) 2 SCC 763 relied.

(Para 11,12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased driving Scotty – Accident with Car – Contributory negligence -- Since, deceased was minor at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was a car which was heavier then the scooty of the deceased, the finding with regard to contributory negligence is set aside.

(Para 10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 17 years old – Income as per daily wages Rs.5,000/- taken – 40% future prospects – Deduction ½ -- Dependency assessed at Rs.3500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/- -- Conventional heads Rs.30,000/- -- Medical expenses Rs.2,51,000/- -- Total compensation comes to Rs.10,37,000/- -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,400/- will carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing petition.

(Para 11,12)