Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of 10 year old child in the year 2010 -- Notional income of the deceased child taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum and multiplier of ‘15’ applied -- No future prospects are to be added -- Claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants (parents) would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation assessed as Rs.6,99,000/- -- Amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

(Para 6-8)

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

(Para 9)

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

(Para 10-12)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 8)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 1, 5)

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

(Para 15)

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

(Para 5-9)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 7-9)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 10-15)

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

(Para 5-8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that compensation should be ‘justly’ determined -- A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the life altering event -- Courts should be mindful of the fact that though, the physical disability may be on the lesser count but the functional disability, on account of injury sustained, can always be on higher side -- Extent of economic loss, arising from a disability, may not be measured in proportions, to the extent of permanent disability.

(Para 14-16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Notional income – Multiplier -- No deduction -- Permanent disability to the extent of 83% of the whole body, claimant suffered ‘hypoxic ischemic brain injury’ – Injuries are permanent in nature, apparently, making the appellant-claimant, unfit for any employment -- Loss of income held to be 100% -- Considering the educational input of the appellant-claimant, being science student, preparing for P.M.T., in modest estimate the income of the appellant assessed to be Rs.20,000/- per month -- Since, it is not the case of death, but it is a case of injury, as such, there does not arise question of deduction, towards personal expenses – At the time of accident, she was about 20 years old – Suitable multiplier to be applied is ‘18’ -- Thus, the ‘loss of income’ comes to be Rs.20000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.43,20,000/- -- Pain and suffering - Rs.3.5 lakh – Medical Bills - Rs.2,85,000/-, Conveyance charges - Rs.12,000/-, Special rich diet - Rs.50,000/-, Attendant charges and future medical treatment - Rs.4,00,000/-, Loss of Marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000/- totalling Rs. 57,17,000/- awarded as compensation – Enhanced amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- awarded with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing appeal.

(Para 17-27)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income of Truck driver – DC rates -- Income of the deceased who was a truck driver assessed in accordance with the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident (10.01.2005) which were Rs. 5,812.75/- per month.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Dependency -- Widow dependent – One dependent of deceased -- It is the discretion of the court to apply the deduction according to the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case -- Sole claimant is a widow – If a deduction of ½ (half) is made to the income of the deceased, it will bring profound challenges in the life of the widow and will cause extreme hardship to her -- Deduction for personal expenses should be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and sole claimant/ widow should be entitled to the remaining 2/3rd of the income of the deceased.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Widow/ claimant -- Interest -- 7.5% per annum interest on compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation awarded.

(Para 10-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Transfer of claim petition u/s 166 of MV Act -- Not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation u/s 166 before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred -- On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 166 provides an option for the claimants to approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they (claimants) reside or carry on business or the defendant resides.

– Claimants having chosen the option to approach the MACT, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, U.P., a forum that law permits them to choose, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner.

-- Urged that since all the witnesses of the petitioner are from Siliguri, language could be a barrier. Contention has been urged only to be rejected.

If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, it is the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengal -- Transfer Petition dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Bursting of tyre – Accident took place due to sudden bursting of tyre -- Tyres of a car do not burst in routine unless the tyres are old and not roadworthy – Owner and driver cannot escape their liability so far as the maintenance of the vehicle -- Driving at a reasonable speed could have controlled it and it might had not struck against the Safeda tree as it happened – Sufficient evidence on record to prove the accident and negligent act as well as fast driving on the part of driver – Insurance company held liable by Tribunal -- Appeal of Insurance company dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Compensation to widow kept in FDR – Sustainability of -- Petitioner/ claimant lost her husband and there is no other earning member in the family – Direction by Tribunal to deposit the entire awarded amount in the shape of FDRs in the name of the petitioner to the extent of 70% and in the name of her daughter to the extent of remaining 30% -- Said rider imposed is inappropriate and improper – Revision petition allowed, bank directed to release the FDR relating to 70% share of the petitioner along with interest.

(Para 6, 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Doctor’s evidence -- Head injury and other grievous injuries – After framing of issues the petitioner availed three opportunities to adduce his evidence – In order to examine the concerned doctor the petitioner had already deposited diet money but he failed to procure the presence of said witness and finally the evidence of petitioner was closed by order – Very foundation of the claim petition is dependent on the testimony of treating/ attending doctor – Held, impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside -- One more opportunity granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence.

(Para 3-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Registered owner – Impleadment of purchaser of offending vehicle as party -- Petitioner is registered owner but his plea is that he sold the same to one JS -- After the accident in question the said motor cycle was taken on sapurdari by said JS – Such a person could also be held liable to pay compensation is a proper party for just decision of the claim petition and accordingly ordered to be impleaded as respondent in the claim petition pending before MACT.

(Para 6, 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Collusion – Onus to prove -- Insurance company alleged collusion of claimants with owner & driver of vehicle -- On same day of accident, FIR was registered u/s 304-A, 279, 427 of IPC -- Number of the vehicle as well as name of the driver of the said offending vehicle is mentioned as unknown – Eye witness followed the truck and stopped it and came to know name of the driver as well as number of the offending truck and he deposed in claim case to that effect – Said witness in the aforesaid criminal case turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case was not confronted with the statement given before the Court of Magistrate – Owner and driver/ Respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted the accident but claimed that it took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcyclist – Onus was on the insurance company to prove the said collusion -- No such evidence was led by the insurance company – Insurance company held liable to pay compensation.

(Para 8, 14, 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case -- Claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability -- Age of the claimant as on the date of accident was 24 years – For loss of Future Income claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.8,000 x 75% x 12 x 18 ÷ 100 = Rs.12,96,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of marriage prospects, Loss of earnings during laid up period would be for four months @ Rs.8,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.32,000/-, Pain, Injuries and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-, Medical and incidental Expenses, Rs. 1,16,812/- -- Total amount of Rs.15,94,812/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

(Para 10-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of insurance company to indemnify 42 passengers -- 26 passengers died and 54 passengers injured -- Appellant shall identify 42 passengers for whom the Insurance Company is liable and identify other claims, for which the Insurance Company has to satisfy and recover from the owner of the vehicle -- The 42 highest claims shall be first satisfied by the appellant-Insurance Company and rest will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitled to recover the same from the owner of vehicle.

(Para 1, 10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Permanent disability -- Both the legs of the claimant were fractured and he became paralytic remained admitted for a period of one and half month in Hospital -- Opinion of the doctor on record that the permanent disability suffered by the claimant is 75% -- Tribunal assessing the compensation by taking the disability as 25% is not at all correct -- Disability of the claimant should have been taken at 75% when the same has been described as permanent in nature by the doctor.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Pain and suffering -- On account of pain and suffering, only Rs.50,000/- has been awarded whereas, both the legs were fractured and the injuries were suffered on the other parts of body and claimant became paralytic and that too after remaining in hospital for a period of more than one month hence, under these circumstances, the claimant is entitled for compensation on account of pain and suffering @ Rs.1.5 lacs instead of Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Income tax return after accident – Reliance upon -- Accident took place in the month of February and the income tax return is always filed at the end of March of a particular year hence, filing of the return after the date of accident cannot be termed to be arbitrary -- Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant by taking into account the income tax return filed.

(Para 10)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Both legs fractured -- 75% permanent disability – Income assed as Rs.13,000/- by relying upon ITR -- 10% future prospects, multiplier of 11 applied -- Medical expenses Rs.4,38,538/- -- Total compensation awarded Rs. 23,82,238/- alongwith interest.

(Para 6-13)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Third party insurance -- Once the Insurance Company has deducted premium for third party, it cannot escape its liability -- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 33 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Non-filing of appeal -- Section 168 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on the Tribunal as well as this Appellate Court to award a compensation which is just and reasonable – High Court, therefore, must pass an appropriate order to deliver complete justice by awarding just and reasonable compensation while exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33, in performance of its statutory duty imposed by Section 168 of the Act -- Appeal is an extension of the proceedings before the Tribunal – High Court exercised its power and discretion under Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC read with Section 168 of the MV Act and moulded the relief which ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal.

(Para 18-26)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules 2006, Rule 5(1) – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deduction of grant given to employee -- Deceased was employed as Head Constable in Police Department aged 37 years and his salary was Rs.21,927/- p.m. -- Addition of 50% made towards future prospects – Deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses as dependent family members are four – Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15 -- Compensation comes out to Rs.44,40,240/- (rounded off to Rs.44,40,375/-) – Insurance company is entitled to deduct amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of Rule 5(1) of Rules 2006 –  Financial assistance for a period of 12 years worked out to Rs.31,01,184/- (21,536 x 12 x 12) -- After deducting amount of Rs. 31,01,184/-, the balance comes out to Rs.13,54,191/- -- Interest granted by the tribunal @ 9% p.a., is somewhat on the higher side, same reduced to 7.5% p.a. Reliance General Insurance’s case 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 569 = 2016(3) L.A.R. 509 = (2016) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10991 relied.

(Para 14-19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Major sons as claimant -- No evidence to prove the pecuniary dependence – Major sons of the deceased are not entitled to compensation.

(Para 8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income – Salary with dearness allowances -- Tribunal for the purposes of assessment of salary has taken net salary of Rs.45,841/- whereas the Tribunal should have taken the basic pay i.e. Rs.26,050/- + dearness allowance i.e. Rs.31,791/- of the deceased employee, which comes to Rs.57,841/- -- High Court recompute the salary of the deceased employee on the basis of Ex.A-13 (pay slip) as Rs.57,841/- per month.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Dependency – Married daughter -- Married daughter of the deceased residing in her matrimonial home, for the purpose of assessing dependency, she cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased at the relevant time -- Considering the number of dependents on the deceased i.e. wife and two children, the Tribunal was justified in making 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects -- Deceased was aged 55 years -- 15% of his annual income ought to have been added to annual income.

(Para 11)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Conventional heads -- Wife of deceased is entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium whereas appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are children of the deceased, therefore, each of them are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- -- In addition, Rs.15,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

(Para 12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Tribunal dismissed the claim petition -- Summary finding that since final report of police u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was adduced in evidence as Exhibit but FIR was not placed on record, that FIR was not proved -- Ld. Tribunal further committed a manifest error in law in returning the finding that driver was wrongly arrayed as an accused which was completely beyond the scope of inquiry by the learned Tribunal – Ld. Tribunal erred in applying the standard of proof like a criminal trial -- Impugned award set aside and claimants held entitled to compensation.

(Para 9.1-10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 16-year at the time of his death -- Ample evidence to hold that he was contributing an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to the income of his father -- On completion of education, he would have worked whole time and earn more than that – Income assessed at Rs.15,00/- p.m. -- Future prospects 40% -- Deduction for personal expenses 50% -- By applying multiplier of 18, loss of dependency assessed as Rs.2,26,000/- -- Lost of Consortium for parents and brother Rs.1,32,000 /- -- Loss of estate & funeral expenses assessed as Rs.33,000/- -- Total compensation Rs.3,91,000/- -- Amount of compensation order to be release with interest @ 7% p.a from date of filing claim petition within 2  months, failing which additional of 3% interest from date of filing claim petition till if payment not made till payment.

(Para 10-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability -- Loss of income – Injured 25 years old -- 100% permanently disabled on account of complete paraplegia with bladder and bowel involvement – Income assessed as Rs.7600/- per month on the basis of minimum wages, addition of 40% towards future prospects, multiplier of 18 i.e. Rs.22,98,240/- awarded – Claimant-appellant, who is totally confined to bed, would be entitled to attendant charges @ Rs.7600/- per month x 12 (Rs.91200/- per year) x 18 = Rs.16,41,600/- i.e. the multiplier applicable in the case – Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost of transportation, special diet -- Loss of amenities of life enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- -- Towards pain and suffering amount enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- -- Amount awarded towards medicines and treatment is maintained – Total compensation assessed as Rs.60,39,533/- -- Enhanced amount of Rs.27,98,240/- shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(Para 3, 6-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-service of respondents – Dismissal of claim petition -- Despite multiple attempts, service could not be effected – Learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in law in summarily dismissing the claim petition without recording any finding qua the correctness or otherwise of the precise address mentioned in the memo of parties – Ld. Tribunal could have given another opportunity to petitioner for taking further steps to serve both respondents – Petitioner permitted to take further steps to serve respondents No.1 and 2 including through their learned counsel who is representing them before trial Court, in case arising out of FIR -- Ld Tribunal shall also allow petitioner to serve them dasti apart from Court processes.

(Para 5-8)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 164 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 16 years boy had lost his life in a road side accident -- Under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a minimum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs is payable by the owner of the offending vehicle or the authorized insurer.

(Para 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased 16 years old -- Help provided by the deceased to his father in his business and for rendering help in other family matters, assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month -- 40% added towards future prospects, notional income comes out to be Rs.7,000/- -- Deceased was a bachelor, deduction to the extent of 50% made as personal expenses – Multiplier of 18 used -- Rs.40,000/- under the head for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate also awarded – Total compensation comes out to be Rs.8,26,000/- -- Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- -- Claimants entitled to enhanced amount of Rs.5,26,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization of that amount.

(Para 12-20)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Sale of vehicle – Liability of registered owner -- Unless there was change of ownership in record with regard to registration of the car, original owner remains liable and he cannot escape payment of compensation under such cover.

(Para 23, 24)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Recovery rights to Insurance company -- Driving license -- Driving licence of the offending vehicle was not produced on record either by the driver or the owner, the Insurance Company could not verify the genuineness of the same, therefore, there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy -- Appellant/ Insurance Company entitled to recover the full amount of compensation paid by it to the claimants from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

(Para 10, 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appeal by claimants – Aggrieved party – Driving License not renewed – Recovery rights -- Tribunal held that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify --  Driving licenses of the driver of the offending vehicle was not renewed at the time of the accident -- It doesn’t mean that he was not skilled driver – Though owner of offending truck has not challenged the impugned order, it cannot be said that the claimants can’t challenge it -- Aggrieved person can file the Appeal – Appeal allowed, respondent-Insurance Company shall pay compensation along with accrued interest thereon and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

(Para 11-15)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Husband, grown up sons and married daughters – Dependency of -- The word 'dependent' has a different meaning in different connotation -- Some may be dependent in terms of money and others may be dependent in terms of service -- It does not mean financial dependency only -- Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency which can never be equated in terms of money -- Children of deceased as well as her husband, ought not to be deprived of the compensation.

(Para 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of income – Street hawker/ House-wife -- Deceased-street hawker aged 45 years and was indulging in sale of bangles -- One of the sons of deceased as PW-1 deposed about the avocation, so followed by his deceased mother -- Likewise, the companion of the deceased, at the relevant time, who is an eye witness to the accident, has also deposed about said avocation – No evidence to the contrary led on the record – Thus by making some guess work, income from this avocation taken to be Rs.2,000/- per month -- Deceased, being wife and mother, should be contributing a lot towards household affairs, the value of services of the deceased in modest estimated to be Rs.2000/- per month – Addition of 25% for future prospects has to be made, income comes to Rs.5,000/- per month – Deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses -- By applying multiplier of 14 compensation for 'loss of dependency', comes to be Rs.5,60,112/- -- Loss of consortium Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000/-, not only for husband but also towards all the four children of the deceased), Rs.16,500/- as loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-, as funeral expenses awarded -- Total compensation comes to be Rs. 8,13,112/- -- Rs.4,13,112/- to be paid to husband and a sum of Rs.1 lakh each shall be paid to children.

(Para 12-19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injured 30 year old  runs a coaching centre -- Stiff knee with shortening would definitely have affected his performance – Permanent disability 51%, functional disability assessed as 25% -- Income as per income tax returns/ ITR Rs.4,00,000/- per annum which comes to about Rs.34,000/- (rounded off) per month -- Addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects awarded – Multiplier of ‘17’ allowed –  Total Compensation awarded Rs.35,48,608/- (Tribunal Rs.11,86,208 + Enhanced Rs.23,62,400) -- Enhanced amount of compensation shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injured 30 year old  -- “Fracture right femur with fracture right both bone leg with fracture right Patella with stiff knee with shortening.” -- Claimant-appellant was operated upon 08 times during the period of one year. Compensation for;

Pain and suffering -- Rs.2,00,000/-,

Loss of amenities of life -- Rs.2,00,000/-,

Special diet -- Rs.50,000/- and for  

Attendant charges Rs.86,400/- (minimum wages) for one year awarded besides other compensation.

(Para 13, 14)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Wrong vehicle number in claim petition – Remand to MACT for correction -- Claimants gave registration No. of the truck as HR-38-7683 which probably was picked up from the F.I.R registered with regard to the accident otherwise in the remaining documents the registration of the truck is mentioned as HR-68-7683 – On account of a little carelessness on the part of the claimant while getting claim petition drafted, the whole confusion has arisen – Impugned Award set aside and case is remanded to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting liberty to the claimants to correct registration number of the truck by moving an appropriate application there – Tribunal directed to complete the proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

(Para 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 163, 164 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- No fault liability – Compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for accident occurred before amendment of 2019 -- Tribunal in terms of Section 140 of the Act awarded Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability – Though Section 164 of the Act was not there at the time when the claim petition was adjudicated but it has come into being during pendency of the appeal -- It being a piece of welfare legislation is to be given liberal interpretation -- Therefore, the claimant found entitled to get compensation of Rs.5 lakhs instead of an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization

(Para 10-16)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Insurance premium paid – Insurance policy made effective from next day – Accident during interregnum period – Liability of Insurance company – Held, Court unable to persuade itself as to how once the Insurance Company having received the entire premium, it could thereafter convey unilaterally that the policy would come into operation from the next following date by sending it through Post, and to turn around and say that insured had agreed and consented to the same coming in operation w.e.f. the next day of having paid premium – Held, once amount was accepted by Insurance Company from insured, thereafter it was merely a formality of conveying terms and conditions of policy in the event of vehicle meeting with an accident.

(Para  3-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Owner’s insurance – Personal accident cover – Borrower of vehicle’ right -- LRs of the deceased borrower of the vehicle entitled to claim compensation on account of personal accident cover as taken out by the owner of the vehicle from the Insurance Company -- Payment of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% as ordered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ordered to be remitted to the respondents-claimants within 04 weeks by registered post.

(Para 3)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Dependency of brother/ claimant – Presumption of independent income of claimant – Bald averment/ statement by claimant/respondent.1 that the deceased was contributing his entire income for the welfare of the claimant and his family, however, there is not a smidgen of evidence on record in support of this contention – a) there is no proof on record that the claimant and his family were entirely dependent on the income of the deceased; b) there is no proof that the deceased was contributing his entire income to the claimant; c) on the contrary the claimant has admitted that he along with the deceased was returning after doing labour work when the accident happened; d) the claimant was also looking after the deceased prior to his death – Held,  presumption is that he would have his own independent source of income.

(Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Recovery of paid compensation -- Amount of compensation already released to the claimant/respondent ordered not to be recovered.

(Para 19-21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future medical expenses -- 95% disability – It would require physiotherapy services throughout his life, the compensation awarded by the High Court at Rs. 3,00,000/- appears to be less – Physiotherapy charges at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day with multiplier of 18, the charges for future medical expenses (physiotherapy) would come to Rs. 9,72,000/- are just and proper.

(Para 17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Transportation charges -- Considering the medical condition of appellant-A who had suffered 95% disability and appellant-S who suffered 70% disability would require extra use of transportation even for going to short distances -- It would be just and proper to award Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- to the appellants A and S, respectively as transportation charges.

(Para 19)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Pain and suffering -- Amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- appears to be just for the appellant-A (95% disability) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to the appellant-S (70% disability) under the aforesaid head.

(Para 20)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Loss of marriage prospects -- Appellants considering their medical conditions, deserve to be suitably compensated for under the head ‘loss of marriage prospects’ – Appellant-A (95% disability) awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- under this head, whereas appellant-S (70% disability) awarded Rs. 1,50,000/-.

(Para 21)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Attendant for life -- Appellant-A (95% disability) because of his medical condition, cannot even stand or walk on his own and would therefore, require an attendant all his life -- Rs. 5,000/- per month for whole time attendant, applying the multiplier of 18, an amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- would be just and proper compensation under the aforesaid head.

(Para 22)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Medical conditions of both appellants (95% and 70% disability) would be requiring special diet supplements assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

(Para 23)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Excess passengers -- Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- Appellant was driving the three-wheeler rashly and negligently and with passengers much in excess of the permissible limit thereby rendering the vehicle unstable and un-maneuverable, more so, on account of the appellant/driver sharing his seat with another passenger -- Appellant cannot escape liability -- Tribunal held liable Insurance Company to make payment of compensation to the claimants/respondents and to recover the same from the owner -- No infirmity in the impugned awards, the appeals dismissed.

(Para 2, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income – Minimum wages for skilled workers – Deceased was doing tailoring and embroidery work though no documentary evidence led -- Minimum wages was Rs.11,517/- p.m. for skilled workers and D.C. rates was Rs.14,900/- p.m. in the year 2019 – Income of Rs. 14,000/- assessed by Tribunal, upheld.

(Para 5,6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Pillion rider – Delay in DDR – Though any aspect of criminal case is irrelevant in itself for the purpose of maintainability of the claim petition, however, the police proceedings, if any, can be used only as a collateral aspect, to a limited aspect to show that the accident, in fact, had taken place – Tribunal is required to decide the claim petition as per the evidence led before it without being influenced by any police records -- Any alleged delay in lodging DDR is totally an irrelevant fact.

(Para 3, 5-10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Pillion rider – Pillion driver is entitled to maintain claim petition and get compensation. Shiv Lochan Singh’s case 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 559 relied.

(Para 8, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Head injury – Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- lumpsum amount -- In the Discharge Slip it has been stated that the claimant-appellant, who was 17 years of the age at the time of the accident, remained admitted in hospital from 18.06.2003 to 23.06.2003 on account of head injury -- No other evidence qua the amount spent during the course of hospitalization – Court deemed it appropriate to enhance the compensation to Rs.2 lakh -- Amount of enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of age -- Deceased aged 36 years as per the post mortem report -- In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the age of the deceased is taken as 36 years.

(Para 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Share of mother -- 5 claimants/dependents, 1/4^th deduction for personal expenses -- Deceased was aged 40 years, addition of 40% ought towards future prospects -- Multiplier of ‘15’ ought to have been applied -- Claimant-appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- each under the head of consortium – Total amount of Rs. Rs.11,98,000/- awarded – Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization -- Mother of the deceased would be entitled to 10% of the amount and the remaining amount would be shared equally.

(Para 14)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Standard of proof -- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of welfare legislation -- Strict rules of evidence and procedure are not applicable -- Standard of proof in a criminal case is very strict since life and liberty of a person is involved, as such the prosecution is required to prove its charge against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt -- While dealing with cases of civil nature, the yardstick to be used is preponderance of probabilities.

(Para 16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Cancellation report in FIR by police – Effect of -- Tribunal is to reach its own conclusion in the matter and is not bound by the result arrived at by the investigating agency.

(Para 18, 19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delay in FIR – Cases under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are to be decided on the touch stone of probabilities – Once the factum of accident has duly been proved, merely because there was a delay in lodging the FIR the claim petition cannot be rejected.

(Para 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Validity of driving license – Contention that Driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle deposed that he had employed respondent No.4 as a driver after seeing his driving license and had also taken his driving test and was only after he was satisfied and after believing that the driving license to be genuine that he employed him as a driver.

(Para 10)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence -- Three riders on motor cycle -- Merely because the rider of the motor-cycle was riding the motor-cycle along with two others would not make him guilty of contributory negligence unless it is established that his act of riding alongwith two others contributed to the accident in any manner.

(Para 12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Husband/owner driving vehicle met with an accident, wife died – Claim petition by legal heirs – Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith 6% interest p.a. awarded by Tribunal u/s 163-A of MV Act – Plea by the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased, being the wife of a tort feaser, could not be considered a third party and Insurance Company cannot be called upon to indemnify the insured-husband who himself was negligent in causing the accident does not hold substance -- Claimants being children are fully vested with lawful rights to claim compensation on account of death of their mother.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Comprehensive policy -- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation even if deceased is considered to be the owner of the vehicle.

(Para 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor deceased aged 24 years -- Constable with the Punjab Police -- Amount equivalent to 50% of the monthly salary of the deceased is to be added for future prospects -- 50% of monthly salary, to be deducted towards his personal expenses -- Annual dependency, so arrived, would be Rs.1,260 x 12 = Rs.15,120/- -- Multiplier of ‘18’, the said amount comes out to be (Rs.15,120x18) = Rs.2,72,160/- -- Loss of filial consortium to parents (44,000X2) = Rs.88,000/- -- Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-, Funeral Expenses, Rs.16,500/- awarded – Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,32,680/- over and above the amount of Rs.62,480/- as already awarded by the Tribunal shall carry the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization and except the amount of filial consortium.

(Para 8-12)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – FIR without details of vehicle and driver – Delay in FIR -- Effect of -- FIR lodged regarding the accident not containing the registration number of the truck and its other particulars as well as details of the driver, can certainly be not taken to be a suspicious circumstance -- It need not contain the details of the incident/accident including the manner it took place; the vehicle which caused the accident; the person, who was driving such vehicle etc. -- It is a matter of investigation -- Though prompt lodging of the FIR is desirable but some delay in doing so does not mean that the version given in the FIR is to be disbelieved outrightly, if convincing explanation for the delay is given -- Some delay in lodging of the FIR may be a relevant factor in a criminal case but not in proceedings u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(Para 17-20)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Nature of evidence -- Tribunal determining such compensation payable is not expected to adopt very rigid and restricted procedure -- Flexibility in the matter is required.

(Para 20)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Collusive claim petition – Allegation of -- Owner and driver filed joint written statement denying that the truck in question had caused any accident -- Witnesses examined by the claimants had been put to cross-examination on their behalf -- Mere fact that respondent No.1/ driver had not stepped into the witness-box to depose on oath the version of the respondents No.1 and 2 in the written statement, rather shows that the evidence adduced by the claimants on the issue has gone unrebutted but then respondent-insurance company also did not make any effort to get his statement recorded by asking him to appear in the witness-box for that purpose – Driver was challaned for causing the accident -- He was arrested in this case and was charge-sheeted -- Truck in question had been seized by the police -- Therefore, no different view can be taken with regard to verdict given by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants and against respondents on the issue.

(Para 21)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Major children -- Appellants-children of the deceased were denied share in the compensation for the reasons that sons of deceased had attained the age of majority and his daughter had been married off – Held, Tribunal clearly fell in error in doing so -- Even major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation in case of accidental death – Compensation order to be distribute to Wife as 55%, two sons and one daughter 15% each. Birender’s case 2020 AIR(SC) 434 relied.

(Para 24)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income of deceased -- Notional income -- Though the deceased died at the young age of 22 years and was not earning anything at that point of time, however, while making the assessment of income, the further economic loss has to be made after considering various factors like educational qualification and family background etc.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income of deceased – Notional income – Future prospects -- Deceased aged 22 years was pursuing Bachelor of Computer Application -- An inference can also be drawn from minimum rates of wages for highly skilled labour in the State of Haryana in the year 2015 which was around Rs.9,700/- per month – Deceased’s income ought to have been assessed @Rs 13,000/- per month -- Grant of future prospects cannot be denied to deceased who, though was not earning anything at the time of his accident and his income was assessed notionally – Future prospects @ 40% awarded.

(Para 6-10)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor-deceased 22 years old – Deduction of personal expenses -- Claimants are his elder brothers and sister, therefore, deduction of ½ upheld.

(Para 11)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Conventional heads -- Claimants are brothers and sister of deceased -- Claimants entitled for Rs.16,500/- as compensation under the head of funeral expenses as well as a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate.

(Para 12)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Loss of consortium -- Claimants are brothers and sister of deceased – Filial consortium is not only restricted to the parents but it is wide enough to include siblings as well -- Furthermore, young brothers and sisters need each other’s strength and association in their everyday life to offer common experiences and unfortunate death of any of the siblings is likely to be traumatic and harmful -- Rs.44,000/- each is required to be awarded on account of ‘Loss of consortium’ to respondents No.1 to 4 who are brothers and sister of deceased.

(Para 14)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Interest -- Notional income assessed -- Claimants are brothers and sister of deceased – Deceased aged 22 years was pursuing Bachelor of Computer Application -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum is not just in view of facts and circumstances of the case -- Interest needs to be enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization.

(Para 7, 18)