Sant Singh vs Sukhdev Singh & Ors

2. The appellant-claimant, Sant Singh, on

8.11.2004, was going to Dera Bassi from Chandigarh

as a pillion-rider on the scooter (No. CH-01-P-

7028) driven by one Nahar Singh, at about 1.30 PM,

1

when the first respondent (driving Tata 709 No. PB-

03-E-4525) came from the Dera Bassi side in a rash

and negligent manner and struck the scooter. As a

result of the collision, Nahar Singh and the

appellant fell down and sustained multiple

injuries. The appellant fractured his left leg

below the knee and both the bones of his right leg.

The appellant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Dera

Bassi and thereafter was referred to PGI

Chandigarh, where he was hospitalized for 11 days.

3. The appellant filed a claim petition before the

MACT under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 claiming Rs.5 lacs as compensation along with

24% interest. The appellant was 48 years of age on

the date of the accident and claimed to be working

as a Work Munshi and earning Rs.4000/- p.m.

4. The MACT awarded total compensation of

Rs.1,47,209/-. MACT awarded Rs.5,000/- as

compensation for hospitalization, special diet,

2

attendant and transportation. As permanent

disability of the limb had been assessed at 60%, it

awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for permanent

disability based on the reasoning in Piara Singh &

Ors. v. Satpal Kumar & Ors. [Vol. CZCVI-2 (2007-2)

PLR 143 (P&H)]. It also awarded Rs.22,209/- for

cost incurred in purchase of medicines. Thus, the

total compensation came to Rs.1,47,209/- with

interest at 7.5%. MACT held all the respondents to

be jointly and severally liable to pay the said

amount to the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved with the award of the Tribunal, the

appellant appealed to the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana for enhancement of compensation and

interest. Keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court was of

the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded

was not sufficient under the different heads for

the injuries suffered and treatment received by the

appellant. Thus, it awarded an overall enhancement

3

of Rs.15,000/-, which it felt would make the

compensation just and reasonable.

6. Still dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by the High Court, the appellant filed the

present appeal before this Court. The appellant

contended that the Tribunal had completely failed

to compensate him for loss of future earnings for

which multiplier method was to have been applied as

per the Second Schedule to section 163A of the

Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the appellant

contended that he was entitled to interest @ 9%.

7. Having heard the parties and on perusal of

evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the

appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed.

8. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

etc. etc., v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others etc.

etc., [AIR 2002 SC 2607], the Court observed that:

4 "We therefore, hold that ordinarily while

awarding compensation, the provisions contained

in the second schedule may be taken as a guide

including the multiplier, but there may arise

some cases, as one in hand, which may fall in

the category having special feature or facts

calling for deviation from the multiplier

usually applicable."

9. In the case of Smt. Supe Dei and Ors. v.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. [(2002) ACJ

1166 (SC)], the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"...It is not disputed that though the second

schedule to the Act in terms does not apply in

the case since the claim is not made under

Section 163A of the Act, it serves as a

guideline for the purpose of determination of

compensation under Section 166 of the Act."

10. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,

Geological Survey of India and another, [AIR 2003

SC 1817], this Court has observed:

"It is now a well settled principle of law that

the payment of compensation on the basis of

structured formula as provided for under the

Second Schedule should not ordinarily be

deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor

5 Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for

determination of the amount of compensation in

terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation of the

structured formula, however, as has been held

by this Court, may be resorted to in

exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of

compensation should be just and fair in the

facts and circumstances of each case."

11. Thus, though the present claim is made under

section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the

principles for determining compensation as per

Section 163A can be used as a guide. Thus, the

Second Schedule can be used as a reference for

determining compensation in a claim under Section

166 of the Act.

12. Applications made under Section 166 are to be

determined based on the principles laid down in Section 168 of the Act, whereby, the Tribunal must

award compensation that is just.

13. Hence, we are of the view that in the present

case, compensation should be awarded on the basis

6

of the principles contained in the Second Schedule

to the Act and thus, the Tribunal and the High

Court erred in not considering the same. The award

of the High Court is thus set aside.

14. The appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. which

amounts to Rs.48,000/- per year. After deduction of

1/3rd for personal expenses, the annual income of

the appellant would be Rs.32,000/-. As per the

Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the

appellant was aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is

to be applied. Accordingly, appellant is entitled

to compensation of Rs.4,16,000/-. We also award

Rs.5,000/- as compensation for hospitalization,

special diet, attendant and transportation and

Rs.22,209/- for cost incurred in purchase of

medicines. Thus, total compensation amounts to

Rs.4,43,209/-, which is rounded off to

Rs.4,43,000/-. The compensation shall be payable to

the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9%

by all the respondents jointly and severally.

7 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

.......................J.

(G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J.

New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

March 04, 2011

8