Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC)] and some adopting the Davies method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 :
(1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)]

11. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 :

1994 SCC (Cri) 335] . After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] to the Nance method [Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., 1951 AC 601 :
(1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC)] .

12. We extract below the principles laid down in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] : (SCC p. 177e) "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death."

13. In U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] followed in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , stated thus: (Trilok Chandra case [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , SCC p. 370, para

41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] [set out in Column (2) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , [set out in Column (3) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] [set out in Column (4) of the table above]; many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act [extracted in Column (5) of the table above]; and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation [set out in Column (6) of the table above]. For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , 14 as per Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , 15 as per Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] , or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 : (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] is applicable.