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)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 42 years -- Annual income of the deceased as per (ITR for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) would be Rs 1,81,500 – After adding 25% for future prospects, income would stand at Rs 2,26,875 -- Deducting an amount of one fourth towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per annum works out to Rs 1,70,156 -- Applying a multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency would work out to Rs 23,82,187 -- Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 3,14,335 towards medical expenses -- An addition of Rs 70,000 would be required to be made on account of the conventional heads of loss of estate (Rs 15,000), loss of consortium (Rs 40,000) and funeral expenses (Rs 15,000) -- Hence, the total compensation is quantified at Rs 27,66,522 on which the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition -- If the amount withdrawn by the claimants exceeds the amount to which they are entitled under this judgment, no recoveries shall be made.

(Para 5-7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2)(a)(ii), 166 -- Driving license – Authorization to drive -- Onus of proof -- Onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

(Para 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2)(a)(ii), 166 -- Driving license – Authorization to drive -- Onus of proof – Liability of insurance company -- Owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having valid driving licence -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(Para 11, 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor-deceased 29 years old, in 2006 -- Deceased was working as Assistant Teacher -- Correct multiplier would be 17 – As regards future prospects, an addition of 50 per cent would be warranted -- Making a deduction of 50 per cent towards personal expenses (the deceased being a bachelor), the total compensation would stand quantified at Rs 61,20,000/- -- After making an addition on account of conventional heads, the total compensation would stand computed at Rs 61,90,000/- -- Aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – No post-mortem – FIR after more than one month – While at one stage it was stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place it was stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment – Circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect –The person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor – A complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case – No hospital records to indicate the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged – Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation.

(Para 3,4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Assessment of income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m sustained -- Multiplier should be 17 -- Addition of 40% towards future prospects would also be warranted -- Since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs 8,56,800/- -- Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses also awarded -- Compensation stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/- -- Interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition allowed.

 (Para 3,6,7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Earning son – Married daughter – Right of -- Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force -- After deduction of Income Tax, monthly income comes to Rs.27,000/- p.m. – Claimants are wife, two sons and two daughters -- Future prospects 15% given – ¼ deduction for personal expenses – After applying multiplier of 9, amount comes to Rs.25,15,050/-  -- After adding, loss of estate,  Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium, Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- total amount of compensation comes to be Rs.25,85,050/- -- Earning son and married daughter of the deceased, both of them being not dependent upon the deceased, are not entitled to any amount from the enhanced amount of compensation -- Enhancement shall fetch interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(Para 2,3,8-10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 53, 61 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of;

--     Claim petition filed by a person u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be barred by Section 53 of this ESI Act only if the person raising a claim is himself an employee of the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the Award of the Motor Vehicles Act -- If the relation between the claimant and the Insurance Company is of a stranger then the claim petition by such a person against such a Insurance Company shall not be barred by Section 53 of ESI Act.

--     “Any Person” in Section 53 has to be read as a person/entity to whom this Act applies -- Section 61 prohibits only receiving twice the 'similar benefits' by an employee with respect to his employment injuries, nothing beyond that – Merely because the injured or the dependents of the deceased are getting some benefits under ESI Act is no ground to deny him/them any other benefit available to him/them under any other enactment if the benefits available to him/them under such other enactment are not similar to the one available under ESI Act.

--     Bar created by Section 53 would be applicable only in case injuries sustained by of injured/deceased is an employment injury and the same is sustained by injured/deceased in his capacity as employee and only if he is claiming subsequent compensation in his capacity as an employee under this Act.

(Para 19-22)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 51E, 53, 61 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Employment injury – Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of –

--     Although Section 51 E, which has been added w.e.f. 01.06.2000 in the Act, creates the deeming fiction that an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing the duty shall be deemed to have arisen 'out of' and 'in course' of employment, however, this deeming fiction is also not absolute in its terms -- Section itself makes it clear that injury sustained by the employee shall be deemed to be the 'employment injury', when coming to or going from the place of work, only if the employment has a nexus with the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred.

--     Mere incorporation of the Section 51E can not, per se, exclude the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act for an accident which happened during the time when person was, allegedly, going to his home after the duty hours -- Ingredients of Section 51 E of the Act has to be pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company to invoke Section 53 of the Act.

(Para 26)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 51E, 53, 61 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee/dependents – Maintainability of –

--     These would be two different and independent remedies available to a person.

--     Whatever the dependents are getting is partly a product of the contribution made by the employee himself during his life time and partly the contribution of employer -- Employer of the deceased employee may be absolved of any liability of making any payment under any other law relating to the employment injury; qua to the entitlement of the deceased as an employee, however, such periodic payment, which is in the nature of family pension, would not absolve a stranger to the employment from discharging its independent liability created under any other statute.

--     No provision has been made by the legislature in the Motor Vehicle Act to specifically exclude the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle; in case of motor vehicle accident; if the dependents of the employee are getting compensation or benefits under ESI Act (unlike compensation under Workmen Compensation Act) in the capacity of the deceased being an employee -- Despite the fact that the dependents of the employee may be having some benefits under the ESI Act in the capacity of the deceased being an employee would not debar them from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said accident.

(Para 30-31)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 146, 147, 149, 150 to 155, 163-A, 166 -- Third party -- Term 'Third Party' has not been defined in exact terms in the New Act, same was the position under the Old Act as well -- Seen in terms of the provisions of the New Motor Vehicle Act it is clear that whosoever is entitled to raise a claim against the owner/Insured or the insurer is the third party -- A combined reading of Sections 146, 147, 149, 150 to 155, 163-A and particularly Section 166 clearly spell out that the Third Party; for contract of Insurance; under the Motor Vehicle Act is:-

(a)    Any person or entity whose property is damaged in the accident.

(b)    Any person who gets injuries in an accident or his authorised agent

(c)    Legal representatives of the deceased person who died in the accident or the authorised agent of such legal representatives.

There cannot be any limitation or dilution of the definition of the term 'Third Party' as used in the Act, since such limitation or dilution shall run counter to the provisions of the Act itself.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147, 149 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Third party – Father-son are distinct legal entities – Any two individuals are separate and distinct legal entities with independent rights and liabilities -- If due to negligence in driving a vehicle, father causes the death of his own son, the dependents of such deceased son can very well raise a claim against the negligent father of such deceased.

 (Para 21)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147(1)(b)(i) and (ii) – Any liability – Any person – Scope of Compulsory Insurance -- By any linguistic extrapolation or any legal interpretation the term 'Any person' cannot mean anything 'less than any person' -- Likewise 'Any liability' cannot mean anything 'less than Any liability' -- Hence this clause covers every liability of insured qua every person – Section 147(1)(b)(i) to include even the passengers travelling in private passenger car and pillion rider of a motorcycle.

 (Para 22-27)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147(1)(b)(ii) –Third party – Public Service Vehicle – Negligence – Proof of – In case of passenger travelling in a Public Service Vehicle; negligence of driver or owner may not be required to be proved by him to maintain his claim; being covered under Section 147(1)(b)(ii).

(Para 29)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147(1)(b)(i) and (ii) – Compulsory Insurance Policy -- Third party – Passenger car – Motor cycle – Passenger travelling in private passenger car and a pillion rider on a Motor Cycle are entitled to raise a claim against the owner/insurer for the injury sustained while travelling in such car or as a pillion rider on such Motor Vehicle -- However, to sustain their claim as third party such passenger in private passenger car or such pillion rider shall have to plead and prove that the owner/driver of such private passenger car or the Motor Cycle has been negligent in driving the said car or the motor cycle at the time of accident.

(Para 30-42)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147(1)(b)(i) and (ii) – Act only policy -- Comprehensive/Package policy -- Third party liability -- Attempt of the insurance companies to avoid statutory liability by creating artificial distinction of Comprehensive/Package policy and the alleged 'Act only policy' does not stand legal scrutiny under the provisions of the New Act -- Qua the claim for damages to third party liability; every policy has to be taken as 'Act Policy' only, since it is mandatory to be issued by the Insurance Company and it is mandatory to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act -- In that sense every policy, qua third party, can be said to be and has to be only an 'Act Policy' -- Classification created by the insurance company cannot be made a ground by it for avoiding liability arising from an insured vehicle, qua the damages to the third party, including passengers in private passenger car/pillion rider on a Motor Cycle -- IRDA does not have any authority to prescribe extra and separate amount even to cover the third party risk because that would tantamount to violation and dilution of the scope of compulsory Insurance prescribed under Section 147(1)(b)(i).

(Para 43-46)

G. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147(1)(b)(i) and (ii), 149 -- Gratuitous Passengers – Concept of -- Unpaid/Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger cars/pillion rider on motor cycle are required to be compulsorily covered under Compulsory Insurance -- Passengers carried for hire or reward in public service vehicles has always been covered under the Compulsory Insurance qua third party -- Claim of paid/non-Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger car is excluded due to this being a defense available to Insurance Company under the Section 149 of the New Act -- Even in case of Goods Carriage' the concept of Gratuitous Passengers does not survive anymore -- In their case also it is carrying the passengers, per se, whether Gratuitous or paid, which is not permissible -- Hence the distinction of Gratuitous Passenger is no more any plea in case of Goods Carriage as well -- The concept of 'Gratuitous Passengers' does not survive under the New Motor Vehicle Act.

(Para 44)

H. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Dependency -- Since the number of dependents in the present case is 5 therefore, the deduction of 1/4th only has to be applied and not 1/3^rd.

(Para 50)

I. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Notional income – Future prospects -- Deceased, having been proved to be a self-employed person by the claimants, they are entitled to the increase of compensation on account of future prospects to the extent of 40% -- Even in case of assessment of the income by the Tribunal on notional basis, the claimants would be entitled to the benefit of the increase of compensation on account of future prospects of the deceased -- Any income assessed by the Tribunal shall be the established income for the purpose of grant of future prospects.

(Para 50-52)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Vegetable vendor -- Deceased was having a license of vegetable vendor -- Income of the deceased cannot be taken to be less than, atleast, Rs.350/- per day -- Monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.10,000/- per month – Held, benefit of future prospects cannot be denied to a self-employed person – Deceased aged 50 +, claimants are entitled to the benefit of enhancement on account of future prospects @ 10% -- Loss of dependency of the claimants is assessed at Rs.10,000/- 2500 (10,000 x ¼) = Rs.7500/- per month -- Hence the total compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 90000 + 9000(90000 x 10%) = 99000/- per annum -- Multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 years would be 13 and multiplier for the age group of 51 to 55 years would be 11 -- No multiplier is prescribed in between -- Since the deceased had, not reached the age of 51 years, therefore, the applicable multiplier has rightly been taken by the Tribunal at 13 – So the total loss of dependency to the claimants come to Rs. 99000 x 13 = Rs.12,87,000/- -- Claimant is held to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate as well.

(Para 12-17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Notional income -- Future prospects -- Benefit of future prospects cannot be denied on the ground that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis and that the claimants has not proved, by documentary evidence, the exact figure of that notional income.

(Para 12)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 -- Proved -- 'proved' means a fact what a Court believes to exist on the basis of the evidence led before it.

(Para 13,14)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 146, 147 – Third party liability – Geographical binding -- Insurance policy is attached to the 'vehicle' in question and not to Geographical expense of the area of operation of the vehicle in question -- Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation only on the ground that the vehicle was used in any particular city, state or a particular geographical area -- Insurance Company cannot even avoid its liability qua third party, on the ground that it can charge extra premium to cover any particular geographical area and that the insured has not paid that extra premium to cover that particular geographical area.

(Para 13)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 146, 147, 148 149, 166 -- Third party liability – Accident outside India -- Liability arising from the accident involving the vehicle entitled to ply in Nepal, the insurer of the vehicle would be very much liable to make the payment.

(Para 14-16)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm  -- Appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life alongwith uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its realization.

(Para 9,10)

A. Interpretation of Judgment -- A coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench -- As “R” has not taken note of the decision “RK”, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the “R” is not a binding precedent.

(Para 61)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163, 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Permanent job -- Future prospects – While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made -- Addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years -- In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15% -- Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(Para 61)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163, 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Self employed – Job on fixed salary -- Future prospects – In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(Para 61)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163, 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Deduction for personal and living expenses -- For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra⁴, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

(Para 39,61)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163, 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Multiplicand/Multiplier -- Selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(Para 44, 61)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163, 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Conventional heads –Loss of Estate -- Loss of consortium – Funeral expenses – Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(Para 61)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Driving License of Driver – Duty of owner – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(Para 10,11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Death case – Compensation for love and affection -- Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of love and affection to the claimants -- There are seven claimants in total, out of which loss of consortium has already been awarded to widow, therefore, remaining claimants are held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each (total Rs.6,00,000/-) towards loss of love and affection.

(Para 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Assessment of compensation -- In case of permanent disability, the compensation towards permanent disability as well as loss of earning capacity on account of said permanent disability have to be assessed independently – Determination of compensation for loss of earning capacity on the basis of multiplier method is proper -- In determination of compensation, some guess work and hypothetical considerations based on sympathy can be worked out, but ultimate determination has to be considered with some objective standards -- Endeavor should be to award just compensation keeping in view the sufferings of the injured person.

(Para 19)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Assessment of compensation -- Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 was rightly applied, thereby making the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings -- Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in day to day expenditure in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(Para 19,20)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 53 – Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employee covered under ESI Act – Claim of -- Prohibition of receipt of compensation or damages by the insured or his dependents under Employees State Insurance Act operates only if it is claimed in respect of an employment injury and it is claimed as an employee under that Act.

(Para 9)

B. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 2(8) -- 'Employment injury' – Interpretation of -- 'employment injury' given by the Act shows that the injury shall be deemed to be an 'employment injury' only if it is caused by an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment of insured, if he is in an insurable employment – Injury would be an 'employment injury' only if he sustains such injury as an employee under this Act -- If the injury sustained by the injured or the death of the insured occurs outside the scope of the employment; the same cannot be considered to be an 'employment injury'.

(Para 9)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 53 – Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employees status -- While traveling, by any means, on the public road a person is not travelling as an employee under the Act, as is required by Section 53 of the Act -- Therefore, Section 53 of the Act cannot be deemed to be a provision for excluding the entitlement of the dependents of the deceased to receive compensation as provided under Motor Vehicles Act.

(Para 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased had four minor children and a widow -- Deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made -- Deceased was 39 years, multiplier of 17 applied --  Monthly Income Rs.2400/- compensation comes to be Rs. 1800 x12x17 = 3,67,200/- -- For love and affection Rs.50,000/- each to the minor children is granted totaling Rs.2 lakhs – Loss of consortium is increased to Rs.75,000/- -- Funeral expenses and loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- -- Claimants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the amount is realised.

(Para 8-21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Salary of deceased – Calculation of -- It is not the take home salary which is to be considered but the deductions towards income tax/ surcharge alone is to be made and other perks are to be included.

(Para 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects -- Age of the deceased was 45 years and he was an employee in the Government Press, 30% increase in his income made by the Tribunal cannot be reduced -- Multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side -- Deceased was survived by a widow, three minor children and his mother -- Five family members of the deceased are claimants -- Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of his income as personal expenses -- Grant of rate of interest of 7.5% cannot be held to be excessive.

(Para 13-19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – License of driver – Adverse inference -- According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

 (Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Permanent disability of 10% -- Claimant had suffered disability of 10% -- Functional disability would be less -- In the absence of any evidence, the income of the injured can be taken to be as that of a labourer -- Minimum wages in Haryana in the year 2014 were Rs.7,400/- per month -- Taking the functional disability to be 5%, the loss per month would be Rs.370/- and the amount towards the disability would come to Rs.370 x 12 x 14 = Rs.62,160/- -- Claimant had suffered a fracture which led to the disability and he would have not been able to resume work for at least four months, therefore, an addition of 4 months' salary will have to be made, which comes to Rs.7,400/- X 4 = Rs.29,600/- -- Claimant had been allowed the actual medical expenses, attendant charges, diet, transportation i.e. all other heads -- Amount allowed on the head of pain and suffering and disability can be taken as Rs. 25,000/-.

(Para 9-11)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 20 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 157 -- Compensation to employee – Liability of Insurance company -- Transfer of vehicle – Intimation to Insurance company – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(Para 13-17)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Concurrent findings of two courts on material issues such as the determination of annual income of the deceased, his age, the number of dependents etc., -- Findings, apart from being concurrent, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary and nor they result in awarding a bonanza or a windfall to the claimants so as to call for further reduction in the compensation awarded by the High Court – Findings upheld.

(Para 16-19)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Just and reasonable compensation – Interference at Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme court -- When under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, Supreme Court do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 18)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, Rule 5 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(Para 22)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Driving license – Proof of – Onus of proof -- When the license was proved by driver, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving -- Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

 (Para 19, 20)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury to 10 year old child – 5% disability -- Claimant has suffered 5% permanent disability -- Claimant-appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- [Rs.90,000-(towards permanent disability) + Rs.15,000/- (towards pain and sufferings, special diet etc.) + Rs.25,000/- (towards loss of studies) + Rs.50,000 (towards loss of future).

(Para 7,8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(14), 146, 147, 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Gratuitous passengers – Third party risk – Liability of Insurance company -- Whether the gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Gratuitous passengers – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(Para 8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(21), 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fake driving licence – Duty of owner – L.M.V. licence – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(Para 8,9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects – Consortium -- Deceased was 42 years of age at the time of his death -- Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh’s case , 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 170 (SC), an addition of 30% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- However, as the matter pertaining to the future prospects is pending adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.16735 of 2014, therefore, the amount of future prospects be released on furnishing of requisite indemnity bonds by the claimants – Keeping in view the law laid down in Sarla's case (supra), multiplier of 14 ought to have been applied -- As per law laid down in Rajesh's case, another amount of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of consortium payable to the wife of the deceased -- In view of Vimal Kanwar’s case (2013-3) PLR 776, another Rs.95,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased, in equal shares.

(Para 15-19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Future loss of income -- Permanent disability to the extent of 44%, and lost hearing power of one ear and vision of right eye – Applying the minimum wages payable to daily wagers, at D.C. Rates, income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month -- Concededly, the appellant was 36 years of age -- In these circumstances, by applying multiplier of '16', loss of future income would be Rs.5,000 X 12 X 16 = Rs.9,60,000/-, 25% of which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- -- Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal for pain and suffering is further enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 4, 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects -- Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of the accident and was owner of commercial vehicle -- Tribunal has added 50% of his income towards future prospects -- Income of the transporters always increases with the passage of time as freights are increasing day by day -- Thus, there was very bright prospects of the increase in the income of the deceased in future -- No fault can be found in adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal in order to assess the amount of compensation.

(Para 6-9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Minor child injured with 100% injuries – Total compensation of Rs.30,60,000/- awarded under different heads -- Child aged 14 years left with mentally deranged and physically incapacitated to move and is bed ridden – Doctors on assessment have declare him 100% disabled -- For the said purpose, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is taken as notional income -- Multiplier of 18 is applied, claimant-appellant, is held entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'loss of earning capacity') + Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'attendant charges) + 1,00,000/- (towards 'pain and suffering') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards transportation) + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards special diet) + Rs.5,00,000/- (towards 'loss of marriage prospects and amenities of life') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards 'medical expenses'), totalling to Rs.30,60,000/-.

(Para 7-11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 25% disability -- Medical Bill – Requirement of – Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 -- Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards disability is sufficient -- As regards medical expenses, no bill has been placed on record -- Yet considering the fact that she has got 25% disability to the whole body, it cannot be said no expense on medical bills, transportation and special diet would have been incurred -- Insurance Company is not in a position to deny this but states that in the absence of any evidence it would not be appropriate for the Court to award any amount -- Keeping in view the nature of injuries, Rs.30,000/- granted for medical expenses, for transportation and for special diet.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 – Deceased aged 11 years – Compensation of Rs.5 lacs is awarded -- Enhanced amount should be paid along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

(Para 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Accident took place on 2.12.2013 – FIR was registered on dated 14.12.2013 after death – Two eye witnesses supported the case of complainant – Driver and owner of truck of the offending vehicle admitted the factum of accident – License of driver cannot be doubted merely for the reason that the register produced by DTO was not properly maintained – Award passed by the MACT upheld.

(Para 6,7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Comprehensive policy -- Claimant/driver was an income tax assessee and his annual income was more than Rs.40,000/- -- A borrower of the vehicle from the owner gets no right of claim against the owner or insurer, unless the accident was on account of any latent defect in the vehicle and the owner was responsible for any accident on account of such defects – Petition is not maintainable.

(Para 4)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A, 166 – Comprehensive policy – Driver dashed against a culvert -- Claimant income was more than Rs.8,000/- per month and he could not have maintained the petition under Section 163-A – High Court take it that the petition is filed under a wrong premise, for, as far as the passenger is concerned, the accident speaks of the negligence of the driver in a typical res ipsa loquitur situation -- Negligence of the driver is writ large and the passenger ought to have been provided for injuries suffered in the accident – High Court treat it as a petition u/s 166 of the Act and allow for the retention of the award against the insurer.

(Para 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased had set up a milk chilling center and had been operating the same -- As per the chart circulated by the Labour Department, Punjab, the minimum income for the highly skilled upper labourer comes to Rs.3,304/- -- Ends of justice would be adequately met, in case, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month – Deceased was 46 years at the time of death an addition of 30% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,000/- + 30% X 12 X 13 X 2/3 = Rs.5,40,800/- -- Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the son of the deceased for loss of love, care and guidance and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- and another amount of Rs.95,000/- is granted to the wife of deceased for loss of consortium.

(Para 7-12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 115 -- Award of Tribunal – Doctrine of estoppel -- Death of cleaner of truck no. HR-38P-8270 and in award, the Tribunal had held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending truck No. HR-73-0804 – No appeal by insurance company -- That judgment operates as estoppel against the Insurance company.

(Para 3)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects -- Concept of future prospects envisages chances or opportunities for success and further progress in life which is a normal course of event for every human being involved in any avocation -- Even if, keeping in view his ability, capacity etc., one may not be in a position to rise in life, there is another aspect that justifies the grant of addition in the income of the deceased, which is the 'inflationary trend' in which we all are living -- Amount of compensation is required to be just and reasonable keeping the inflationary trend in view, where the prices of the basic amenities of life are likely to increase further – Award of 50% towards future prospects, upheld.

(Para 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Claim in motor vehicle accident case – Cause of death -- Doctor’s evidence -- Accident took place on 21.5.2010 and injured got admitted in hospital on 21.6.2010 – Doctor stated that it was a known case of chronic heart disease and alcoholic liver disease and deceased died a natural death and has no relation with the alleged accidental injuries – Held, courts are no experts for determining cause of death -- If we make inference about the cause of death as due to an accident, we invariably look to the fact of accident and the proximate cause for the death and wherever postmortem is done, the report of the Doctor regarding the cause of death – It will be wholly wrong for a Tribunal to discard Doctor's evidence and enter a pure realm of conjecture to determine cause for death – Award passed in favour of claimant is result of misplaced sympathy – Award is set aside.

(Para 4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Rash and negligence driving – Version in DDR – Change of stand in statement – Evidential value of -- In DDR, the claimant stated that the accident had taken place by chance and there was no fault on part of anyone -- Only evidence available with regard to the cause of accident on the record is the affidavit of the claimant stating therein that his motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending car rashly, negligently and in a high speed -- Neither driver of car on his own stepped into the witness box to controvert the deposition of the claimant nor the appellant-insurance company made any effort to examine him to elicit that there was no element of rash and negligent driving involved in the accident – Offending car held liable.

 (Para 10-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects – Love and  affection -- Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month is inadequate being less than the minimum wages -- At the age of the deceased the amount fixed at minimum wage at least deserves to be granted -- Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4400/- per month -- Deceased Vikram was 19 years of age at the time of his death -- Keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh’s 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 170 (SC), an addition of 50% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Multiplier of 18 deserves to be applied – Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' would come to Rs.4400/- + 50% X 12 X 18 X 1/2 = Rs.7,12,800/- -- Following the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar’s case (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection.

(Para 7-11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased was an agriculturist and was managing his agricultural land himself, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month -- Since the age of the deceased was 43 years, there has to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects -- Deduction of 1/4th applied – Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to appellants for loss of love and affection -- A further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to widow for loss of consortium – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(Para 11, 12, 17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Income of deceased assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month – Deceased aged 48/50 years -- An addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects allowed – After deduction of 1/4th multiplier of '13' would be the appropriate multiplier – Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to appellants for loss of love and affection -- A further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to widow for loss of consortium -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

 (Para 13,14, 17)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased-lady was a household lady aged about 45 years – Services rendered by a housewife cannot be less valued than what a daily wager can earn -- Considering the relevant facts the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1500/- per month  -- Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate multiplier -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(Para 15-17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Deceased slipped/skidded from the motorcycle and it is the consistent stand of the relatives that there is no criminal intent -- However, after two days, when the patient died, the theory of involvement of the offending vehicle was coined and the same has been proved before the Tribunal -- However, when the case came up before the Criminal Court, the same very eye witness turned hostile so that the accused-driver is not put to any harm and thus cleverly the insurer of the offending vehicle has been made to be held liable to pay the compensation in the instant case – Held, there is a massive increase in such like cases of fraud -- High Court in its supervisory role has the onerous duty to cleanse the lower Courts of such fraudulent acts -- Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed -- Claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed -- Superintendent of Police is directed to investigate the matter and initiate the appropriate proceedings.

(Para 21-24)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 4(2), Order 41, Rule 31, Section 96 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Award of Tribunal – First Appeal – Duty of First Appellate Court/ High Court  – An appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence -- High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how, and if not, why? -- As a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute -- Impugned judgment also does not, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons -- Impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable – Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

 (Para 24-29)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Accident by Bus – Mechanical defect -- Negligence of -- A bare perusal of the FIR substantiates the plea of the claimants and not of the driver – Driver has not pleaded in reply that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a sudden, and has also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a stationary tractor -- Thus the version of the driver is not reliable -- Mechanic has categorically stated that the belt of springs could have been broken in case brakes were suddenly applied -- Thus it appears that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and initially dashed the stationary tractor and then a eucalyptus tree -- In the circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver -- Apart from that merely a mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its liability in the absence of evidence being adduced that the vehicle was maintained properly.

(Para 8,9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Entitlement of Parents / Brothers -- Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased -- Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(Para 10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 14 – Driving license – Expiry of – Accident within 30 days – Effect of -- Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.11.2011 – Proviso to Section 14 read as “Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” -- In view of the above provision, the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(Para 5-7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in Motor Vehicle accident case -- Deceased was running business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(Para 9)