The Managing Director vs Manisha Roy & Ors on 16 September, 2009
In the case of Subhomoy Nag (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held
that in proceedings under section 166 of the Act, the second schedule in terms
does not apply. It was pointed out therein that the said schedule is applicable to
the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act where the claimants are not even
required to prove the negligence of the involved vehicle and is applicable to the
victim whose income does not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum whereas in the
proceedings under Section166 of the Act, the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle must be established and the actual loss suffered by the
claimants for the untimely death is to be ascertained as far as possible and
practicable. We do not for a moment dispute the said proposition of law. The duty
of the Court to assess just compensation becomes easier when the victim is in a
stable service and his scale of pay is known. In such circumstances, the Court
can easily get a rough idea of the loss suffered by the claimants. In this case, the
income of the victim being known and the rest period of the service being also
known, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 11 when assessment has
been made on the basis of income of the victim at the age of 50 being fully
conscious that he would have retired after 10 years at a much higher scale of pay
were he not died of the accident. We, thus, do not find that the said decision
helps the appellant in anyway.