Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.95 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
10. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should
be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is
whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or
whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In
Susamma Thomas, this Court held that the future prospects of advancement
in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the
multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the
deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the
future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the
actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of
the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per month.
Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was
of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at
Rs.2000/- as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses.
The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Yadav [1996 (3) SCC 179], where the deceased was getting a gross salary of
Rs.1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions
and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning
would have nearly doubled, say Rs.3000/-. This court took the average of
13
the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had
lived a normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs.2200/-
per month.
Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological Survey ... on 14 February, 2003
In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey
of India [2003 (3) SCC 148], as against the actual salary income of
Rs.42,000/- per annum, (Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this
court assumed the income as Rs.45,000/- per annum, having regard to the
future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years
of age.
Fakeerappa And Anr vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory And Ors on 13 February, 2004
In Fakeerappa vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory - 2004 (2) SCC 473,
while considering the appropriateness of 50% deduction towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased made by the High Court, this Court
observed:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
18. The principles relating to determination of liability and quantum of
compensation are different for claims made under section 163A of MV Act
and claims under section 166 of MV Act. (See : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Meena Variyal - 2007 (5) SCC 428). Section 163A and Second
Schedule in terms do not apply to determination of compensation in
applications under Section 166. In Trilok Chandra, this Court, after
reiterating the principles stated in Susamma Thomas, however, held that the
operative (maximum) multiplier, should be increased as 18 (instead of 16
indicated in Susamma Thomas), even in cases under section 166 of MV Act,
by borrowing the principle underlying section 163A and the Second
Schedule. This Court observed:
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
"Section 163-A begins with a non obstante clause and provides for payment of
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives
of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second
Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for
third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column
gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the
multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of
compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim.
According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age
group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the maximum
multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case.....
Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on
the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age
of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be
relevant in the choice of the multiplier......What we propose to emphasise is
that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the
improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16..."
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S. Rajapriya And Two Others on 20 April, 2005
This was
reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005
(6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna
Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given
below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for
claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50
years) :
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn vs Krishna Bala & Ors on 13 July, 2006
This was
reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005
(6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna
Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given
below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for
claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50
years) :