Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor vehicle accident compensation case – Breach of policy – Pleading and evidence – Requirement of – It is mandatory for the insurance company not only to plead the breach of conditions of an insurance policy but also to substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence – In the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that there was a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.

(Para 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fake driving license – Recovery rights to Insurance company -- It was the claimant alone who relied upon the license issued by Licensing Authority Mandi-HP, which was not found to be genuine -- Having appointing driver after taking test, the appellant was not expected to make enquiries from the licensing authority as to whether driving license shown to him is valid or not – Owner/ appellant has stated that driver had produced the driving license from Nagaland but no such license was produced on record, it is obviously a mistake on the part of the owner – However, such aspect cannot be used to grant liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner – Once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver – Liberty given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant/ owner set aside.

(Para 4-11)

B. falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not the principle applicable in India.

(Para 6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Standard of proof -- Standard of proof in claim petitions filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be equated with that of criminal cases -- In criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in cases before the Motor Accidents Claimants Tribunal, the claimants are only required to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delay in FIR – Eye-witness not accompanied injured to hospital – Effect of -- Injured did receive serious and multiple injuries in the accident in question -- Just because there happened to be some delay in naming the offending vehicle, and the eye-witness not accompanying the injured to the hospital, would not in any way raise a question mark about the authenticity of version given by the injured/claimant qua the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question -- Delay, if any, cannot thus be a ground to suspect the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question -- Injured/claimant received serious injuries for which he remained hospitalized for many months -- It is but natural that the injured/claimant would have been in a severe shock, on account of the serious injuries received including amputation of his right leg -- Hence, the delay if any in the registration of the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question.

(Para 7)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim from Mediclaim policy – Compensation for medical expenses by MACT Tribunal -- Whether the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the injured claimant qua the medical expenses incurred since he had also received money qua the same from his Mediclaim policy -- Compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory in nature, whereas, under an insurance policy, it is akin to a contract between the insured and the insurer -- In an insurance policy, the insured contributes his own money, whereas, the amount of compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of an injury received or death is not a result of any contribution made by the claimants -- Court found no error in the impugned award. Helen C. Rebello’s case 1998 AIR (SC) 3191 relied.

(Para 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 50% of the awarded amount directed to be deposited in FDRs by the Tribunal – Claimant-petitioners are the parents of the deceased are over 40 years of age and have also three other minor children to look after -- Order passed by the Tribunal set aside and the award modified -- Amount of compensation lying deposited in the shape of FDRs ordered to be released to the petitioners forthwith.

(Para 5, 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(30), 166 – Motor vehicle accident compensation case -- Owner -- Hire-purchase agreement with School -- Clause 1 of agreement state that the bus has been purchased for transporting the children and staff to school and back and school tour’s/trip etc. -- Clause 2 reveals that the petitioner herein is liable to pay all taxes and fees for Govt. Offices for the said bus for the period it remains on hire with the petitioner-school – Offending vehicle was being plied by the petitioner-school under a hire purchase agreement and thus, as per definition given in Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988, the petitioner would be considered to be an owner.

(Para 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased driving Activa on wrong side – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Driver of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness box as RW1 and stated that the deceased was driving the Scooter on the wrong side -- However, except statement of the driver no other details as to where the deceased had tried to cross the slip road in a rash and negligent manner are forthcoming from the statement or from the pleadings -- Pleadings are totally bereft of any details which could even remotely show that the deceased was driving the Activa Scooter on the wrong side of the road – A conjoint reading of the statement of the eye-witness as well as of the driver leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 -- Argument raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence rejected.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of Income of deceased -- Income Tax Return – Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- Proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and do not admit strict principles of law of evidence to be applied – Considering the scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, the income-tax returns produced by the claimants ought not to be rejected merely because they have not been proved by some official from the Income Tax Department unless some serious doubts are raised qua the authenticity of the same – High Court finds no reason not to accept the income calculation of the deceased as adopted by the Tribunal.

(Para 7, 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Amount ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) – Challenge to -- Notice to respondents – Requirement of -- Claimant-petitioner was a major at the time of filing of the claim petition, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded, however Rs.50,000/- was to be paid in cash and the remaining amount was split into two parts to be kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years and five years in a nationalized bank – Order set aside, the amount lying in the fixed deposits ordered to be released forthwith -- In view of the fact that the matter is between the claimant-petitioner and the Tribunal, there is no requirement to issue notice of motion to the respondents.

(Para 6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Proof of accident – Standard of proof -- Standard of proof cannot be kept at par with that of criminal cases where the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -- MACT cases stand on a different footing since therein claimants are only required to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities -- It cannot be disputed that the deceased indeed died in a motor vehicular accident which finds due corroboration from the medical evidence as well -- Just because there was a delay on the part of eye-witness in getting his statement (PW2/A) recorded before the police, would not in any way raise a question mark about the authenticity of his version much less the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question since he categorically deposed that he had left for Delhi after the accident in question and came back on 09.03.2013 (Accident 3.3.2013) -- Delay in making the statement is, therefore, satisfactorily explained.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Mechanical report against involvement of vehicle – Delay in custody of vehicle – Effect of -- Contention of the insurance company that the mechanical test report (Ex.R7) of the offending vehicle clearly established that it was not involved in the accident in question deserves to be discarded as the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the police after the statement of eye witness much after the accident in question -- Hence, the possibility of the offending vehicle having been sent to the workshop for repairs in the intervening period cannot be ruled out – Appeal by insurance company dismissed.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Claim petition by siblings of the deceased – Maintainability of -- Appeal by claimants for enhancement -- Specific issue was framed before the Tribunal and the same was answered in favour of the claimants relying upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of 'Hafizun Begum vs. Md. Ikram Haque & others', 2007(10) SCC 715 -- Neither of the respondents has preferred appeal -- Thus in view of settled proposition of law and the fact that the finding on the Issue has not been assailed, the objection w.r.t. maintainability of the petition at the hands of siblings of the deceased, sans merit -- Claim petition is held to be maintainable.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of Income of deceased – Future prospects -- No evidence of income -- Minimum wages notified by State -- Deceased, aged 24 years was employed as a driver -- In the absence of cogent material on record, his income thus needs to be assessed as per the minimum wages notified by the State of Punjab as Rs.4375.00/- per month – Income enhanced to Rs.4375.00/- per month -- As per guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (2017) 16 SCC 680 further component of 40% on account of future prospects needs to be added.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Bachelor/ Unmarried deceased – Deduction for personal expenses -- Keeping in view that the deceased was unmarried, deduction of ½ has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.

(Para 9)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased aged 24 years – Multiplier -- Owing to the age of the deceased i.e. 24 years, multiplier applicable will be 18.

(Para 9)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Conventional heads – Funeral expenses -- Loss of Estate -- Loss of consortium – Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium awarded.

(Para 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition u/s 163-A -- Issue of rashness and negligence is inconsequential -- Moreover, the issue having been decided in favour of the claimants and no appeal preferred by the respondents -- Finding on issue maintained.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased housewife 70-80 year of age -- Date of accident is 10.06.2005 – Income of the deceased assessed @ Rs.20,000/- per annum which shall have further component of 40% for future prospects -- Deceased being more than 65 years of age, the multiplier applicable will be of 5 -- Keeping in view the large family of the deceased, 1/4th deduction shall be made to calculate dependency -- Claimants further held entitled to Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- each as loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- as loss to the estate.

(Para 3-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26, Rule 1, 4 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appointment of Local Commissioner for recording statement of eye-witness to accident – Report of the Process Server that the said witness is unwell and is undergoing dialysis -- No reason to disbelieve the report -- Petitioners cannot be expected to have the medical history of an eye-witness of the accident – Tribunal directed to appoint a Local Commissioner to record the statement of the said eye-witness.

(Para 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166  -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income from Poultry Farm -- Assessment of income – Poultry Farm still running – Plea of – Evidence of -- Income-tax returns produced in evidence and income was assessed at Rs.4,72,950/- per annum – Argument that since the income of the deceased was from the poultry farm which is being run even after his death and as such the income be reduced, cannot be accepted – Appellant neither raised any such plea before the Tribunal nor led any evidence to the said effect -- Even before High Court only a photocopy of the report dated 11.01.2022 by General Insurance Investigator has been sought to be placed on the record -- No application has been filed for leading additional evidence -- In the absence of any pleadings or evidence to substantiate the argument raised by the appellant, the same is liable to be rejected.

(Para 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-examination of driver – Adverse inference – Tribunal awarded compensation to claimants -- Sole argument of appellant-Insurance Company is that the accident never took place and a false claim had been filed in order to grab the compensation -- Not disputed that the deceased was taken to the hospital with the history of a road accident – Statements of RW-1 Dr. AK and RW-2 Dr. R would support the version put forth by the claimants and it has been deposed by both the witnesses that the deceased was brought to the hospital with a history of a road-side accident – Rider of the motorcycle/ respondent no. 7 while reporting the matter to the Police had got his statement recorded to the effect that the accident had taken place when a bull came on the road and struck into the motorcycle and the deceased received grievous injuries, which eventually proved fatal – Driver of the vehicle, respondent No.7, did not step into the witness box to rebut the evidence led by the claimants, since he chose not to step into the witness box, an adverse influence was drawn against him -- It is well settled that in such like cases the claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while dealing with the motor accident cases -- Approach of the Tribunal should be a holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of probability, which stands satisfied in the present case -- Appeal by Insurance company dismissed.

(Para 8-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2), 166. 170 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Grounds of defence for Insurance Company -- Insurance Company would be competent to contest the claim application on all the grounds as available and can urge all grounds in defence and not necessarily the limited grounds mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(Para 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence – Plea of -- Deceased’s vehicle while exiting the link road had accident on highway -- The driver of the offending vehicle was the only person who could have deposed regarding any negligence on the part of the deceased and he has chosen to keep quiet and rather denied the entire accident -- No evidence remotely show that the accident took place at the intersection -- Appeal devoid of any merit dismissed.

(Para 2,12,14,15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Split multiplier – High Court applied split multiplier only on the ground that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident and leftover service was only four years – Held, in normal course, the compensation is to be calculated by applying the multiplier, as per the judgment of this Court in the Case of Sarla Verma, (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247 -- Split multiplier cannot be applied unless specific reasons are recorded -- Finding of the High Court that the deceased was having leftover service of only four years, cannot be construed as a special reason -- Judgment of the High Court set aside by restoring the award of the Tribunal.

(Para 8-11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Successors of deceased of offending vehicle – Right of -- Ground that successors of the tortfeasor cannot be granted any compensation -- Deceased person was the driver of the offending Scorpio vehicle -- Held, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be taken as a defence by the Insurance Company in a claim petition filed u/s 163-A of the said Act.

(Para 3-7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Claimant doing Jewelry work -- 69% permanent disability – Loss of earning capacity – Expenses for bystander -- Future Medical Expenses -- Impact on the earning capacity for the claimant by virtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as a proportionate loss of his earning capacity -- Earning life for the appellant is over and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100% -- There is no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home -- In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% -- As his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospect thereto, the monthly loss of earning is quantified as Rs.6,300/- -- Compensation quantify at Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) for 100% loss of earning for the claimant – Loss of 6 month hospitalization also corrected as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6) -- Expense for bystander assessed Rs.10,80,000/- -- Future Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000/- -- Total compensation Rs.27,67,800/-

(Para 3, 16-18)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability – Just compensation -- Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim -- The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity -- Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more” -- Efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities -- While the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

(Para 19)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 14, 166 -- Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule 9 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Heavy Transport Vehicle License – Accident by Oil Tanker – Endorsement for – Driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and subsisting driving license to drive the Heavy Transport Vehicle -- Absence of the endorsement on the driving license in compliance Section 14 read with rule 9 is pleaded -- Insurance company not exonerated of its liability due to absence of endorsement on the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(Para 13-15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident -- Employment of deceased – Evidence of – Requirement of Form-16 -- Deceased was working as Surveyor -- Salary certificates of the deceased for all the years were placed on record and CW2 identified signatures of the partners of the firm on the said salary certificates -- Audited balance sheet of the Firm with which the deceased was working as well as income tax returns of the Firm are on record -- To say that Form-16 has not been placed on record, is not a ground to discard the evidence on record in the given factual matrix.

(Para 16)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income – Deceased having Heavy vehicle driving licence – Minimum wages – Oral evidence – Value of -- Wife deposed that her husband/deceased was earning Rs.15000/- per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed -- Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016 – Held, in absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased -- In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done -- Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income -- No reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife.

(Para 10)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Death of son --  Consortium to parents – Consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each granted.

(Para 3, 11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income – Income Tax Return -- It is only on the basis of the said ITR that the income of the deceased and the consequent loss of dependency to the claimants, has been assessed by the Tribunal -- If the insurance company had any proof that before this year the deceased, who was self-employed, was not earning this much of money, then the insurance company was free to lead anything in evidence to that effect -- It is the income of the deceased which he was earning at the time of the death, which is the basis for calculation and grant of the compensation to the dependants; and any earlier lesser income would be totally irrelevant -- Hence, Court did not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal; in this regard.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Territorial jurisdiction of MACT case - Accident at Rajasthan – Claim petition at Gurugram -- Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(Para 6, 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Registration of FIR – Requirement of -- Even if there had been no FIR registered in the matter, that would not have disentitled the claimants from compensation on account of death of deceased in the accident.

(Para 8)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-involvement of insured vehicle in accident – Plea of -- If the insurance company intended to rebut the evidence led by the claimants on this aspect, then the insurance company should have led positive evidence in this regard – Despite taking a specific plea in the written statement that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not involved in the accident, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this assertion made in the written statement -- Hence, their pleadings have gone totally unsubstantiated -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Merely acquittal would not absolve the insurance company of its responsibility to pay the amount of compensation -- Merely because the complainant and eye witness did not support the prosecution version, would not mean that the claimants are not entitled on account of the death of the deceased.

(Para 6,7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 168 -- Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, Rule 3(iii) – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects --  Rules contemplates addition of 20% of salary for future prospects -- If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017) 16 SCC 680 cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge – Prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima -- In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication -- If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.

(Para 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injured was operated for the fracture of his femur and fracture acetabulam left side and was operated twice in the hospital which charged Rs.2,90,000/- -- Similarly, Rs.36,049/- which was incurred on account of medicine charges was also brought on record – It is in such circumstances the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of income of Rs.33,714/-, to arrive at the amount of compensation of Rs.4,09,763/--- Injured was drawing a salary of Rs.16,857/- per month, which is the basis to grant the said compensation for the period he was not able to do duties on account of the fracture sustained -- No case is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

(Para 6, 7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death and he was un-married -- Income of the deceased proved to be Rs.12,455/- per month minus the applicable income tax -- No deduction is to be made from the salary qua other allowances etc. -- Multiplier is required to be applied as per the age of the deceased -- Multiplier of 16 and the eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50% -- Appellant no. 1 is entitle for Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses -- By taking 50% dependency amount of compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,36,000/- to 16,36,816/- -- Interest @ 6% per annum awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation of Rs.13,00,816/-.

(Para 6, 10, 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- While lying in F.D., the money may not generate the same additional value as it can create through a business enterprise or other means of income, which can be created through this money -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Hence, entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(Para 2-4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Insured vehicle -- Plying under an agreement with the Corporation – Liability of Insurance company -- During such time it will be deemed that that vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy, even if it were insured at the instance of the original owner -- Thus, the Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation -- High Court was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant-Corporation -- Appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Daily diary report – Evidential value --Contends that as per daily dairy report, the accident took place as a stray dog suddenly came on the road and therefore, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be negligent – Held, daily dairy report was entered on the statement of respondent No.6, who was, at the relevant time, driving the motorcycle he cannot be expected to admit his negligence – In support of the claim petition, eyewitness has appeared before the Court to depose, he has been thoroughly cross examined by putting searching questions -- His deposition has been found creditable by the Tribunal -- Hence, the contention is without substance.

(Para 4-6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Pleadings of negligence – Requirement of -- Contention that deceased was not wearing helmet while riding on the pillion of a motorcycle, hence amount payable by the insurer is liable to be reduced on account of contributory negligence of the deceased – Held, Insurance company has neither laid any foundation in the pleadings nor led evidence in support thereof -- Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(Para 4, 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(Para 7)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Plea of collusion – Proof of -- Insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its plea of collusion between the claimants on the one hand and the owner and driver on the other hand – No ground to interfere in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is made out -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court  expresses inability to accept the argument.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Salary slip show deceased drew total salary of Rs.76,163/- -- Tribunal after deducting the amount towards AFPP fund subscription, AFPP refund and the amount of income tax came to income of the deceased as Rs.63,182/- per month, of which annual income works out to Rs.7,58,184/- per annum – Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, 50% addition of actual salary on account of future prospects made out -- Tribunal applied 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who has left behind four dependents -- Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs.8,52,957/- as annual dependency -- No error to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Car was on hire – Pleadings of – Non-framing of issue – Effect of -- No evidence that the car was being plied on hire at the relevant time -- Insurance Company did not plead this fact in its written statement -- Consequently, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this aspect – Held, Insurance Company has failed to lay any foundation by pleading the aforesaid fact and thereafter, corroborate the same by leading any evidence -- Hence, the contention is rejected.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A -- Seven persons were travelling in the vehicle whereas the registered seating capacity of the vehicle is of five only – Held, Insurer is liable to the extent of persons permitted under the carriage permit – Vehicle was permitted to be occupied by five persons, only five claim petitions were filed -- No ground to admit the appeals. Anjana Shah’s (2007) 7 SCC 445 & KM Poonam’s case (2011) 2 PLR 477 relied.

(Para 9, 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(Para 7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 140, 163-A, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Simultaneous proceedings u/s 163-A and Section 166 of the Act cannot be undertaken as the remedies therein are separate and independent -- Remedy provided u/s 163-A is on the basis of no-fault liability -- Said proceedings are final in nature unlike those u/s Section 140 of the Act.

(Para 9)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163-A, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- In appeal it was held that petition u/s 163-A was not maintainable as income of the claimant was much more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. – Under the circumstances, there was no bar upon the claimant to file a petition u/s 166 of the Act on the basis of fault liability -- If the claimant had taken benefit of the award passed on the petition u/s 163-A of the Act and had then filed a petition u/s 166 of the Act, the petition u/s 166 of the Act was barred.

(Para 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fixed deposit Receipt/FDR – Release of  -- Money needed for marriage of son -- No restriction can be placed on the rights of an adult to claim the compensation amount deposited in his or her name -- A pedantic approach has been adopted by the Tribunal, resulting into rejection of her prayer -- Ld. MACT directed to release the amount of compensation lying in FDR in favour of the petitioner as per Apex court guidelines. H.S.AhammedHussain’s 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 563 case relied.

(Para 3-6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income – Interference in -- Pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was working in Havells India Ltd. at its factory at Baddi, earning Rs.15,000/- per month -- However, no evidence in support thereof was produced -- Court after appreciating evidence, assessed the income at Rs.12000/- per month -- No ground to interfere. Lalita Devi’s case Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15703 relied.

(Para 3-5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Interest @ 9% p.a. – Interference in – Simple Interest on awarded amount @ 9% given by the Tribunal -- If compound rate of interest is calculated, it would come to much less than 9 % per annum -- No ground to interfere.

(Para 4-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of income -- Claim of earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. while working as a Labour Contractor -- Deceased’s son and brother have appeared in evidence and stated that the deceased was working as Labour Contractor – Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.12,000/- per month – Held, in absence of documentary evidence, oral evidence, if found worthy of reliance, can be relied upon -- No doubt, the notification, issued regarding linking of minimum wages with Consumer Price Index, is relevant, however, that is not binding, as such, on the Tribunal -- Still further, a Labour Contractor cannot be equated with an unskilled labourer – Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, has arrived at a finding, High Court in absence of evidence to the contrary, does not find it appropriate to interfere.

(Para 4-7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137, 139, 145  -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- FIR author not examined – Non-reporting of accident to police by eye-witness -- Adverse inference -- Eye witness (AW-3) accompanied deceased to hospital in his car -- It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR -- High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to Police -- Failure of the respondents to cross examine the solitary eye-witness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part -- They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants -- High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of cross-examination of a crucial witness -- Statement of AW-3 does not suffer from any evil of suspicion and is worthy of reliance -- Tribunal rightly relied upon his statement and decided in favour of the claimants.

(Para 17-24)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Principle of evidence -- Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases -- Standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt -- One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.

(Para 22)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 101, 102 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Burdon of proof -- Rash and negligent driving by other vehicle – Defence of – Non-examination as witness – Effect of -- Adverse inference -- If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the other vehicle driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place -- Fact that he chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault -- High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof.

(Para 23)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects -- Deceased was 34 year old – Appellants are held entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, besides 40% addition in the annual income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’ -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is directed to recalculate the compensation amount accordingly -- Appellants are held entitled to interest @ 8.5%, as per the Tribunal’s award, on the entire amount of compensation.

(Para 4, 26)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – FDR/ Fixed deposit for Major claimants – Permissibility of -- It is not correct and proper to direct deposit of the compensation amount in a Fixed Deposit in the case of adult claimants – Discretion of the Tribunal to direct such deposits has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the individual facts of each case -- Petitioner is 34 years of age and has a large family to provide for, including 7 minor children range from 2 to 17 years -- Petitioner undertaking construction of a house -- Tribunal ought not to have disallowed the plea of the petitioner to release the amount – Civil revision allowed, amount ordered to be released. H.S. Ahammed Hussain’s case (2002) 6 SCC 52 relied.

(Para 5-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income @ Rs.10,000/- p.m assessed for the  deceased 34 years old professional driver -- 25% increase for future prospects added -- Deduction of 1/4th put on account of the six dependents – Dependency comes to Rs.1,12,500/- -- Multiplier of 16 applied -- Rs.40,000/- as consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses given to take the grand total at Rs.18,70,000/- -- Benefit of 6% interest also granted, which cannot be said to be on the higher side -- Award of the MACT not seem to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity which would warrant interference – Appeal dismissed in limine.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Disability of Driver 44% as per medical certificate and Tribunal assessed at 100% -- Taking into consideration the medical opinion, the claimant would no longer be competent to drive the car or pursue his profession as a driver – Court found it difficult to interfere in findings of the Tribunal assessing disability to the extent of 100% for computing compensation.

(Para 14-16)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- Award does not indicate that the insurance company ever raised an issue with regard to its entitlement to enforce recovery rights against the insured for want of producing permit of the vehicle in question – No materials pointed out on record to prove that the insurance company ever called upon the insured to produce permit of the vehicle in question -- This apart, there is no provision in the Act that creates a statutory defence in favour of the insurer akin to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- In the given scenario, insurance company cannot derive any advantage to its contention from the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh’s case 2018 (7) SCC 558 -- Appeal fails and dismissed in limine.

(Para 17-19)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Fake licence of driver – Liability of owner -- Once due care and caution has been exercised by the owner of the vehicle while engaging services of the driver, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the driver is not holding a valid driving licence unless it is to be proved that the owner was aware that the licence was fake and he still permitted the driver to continue to drive the vehicle -- In cross examination RTO/RW-2 stated that possibility of record going missing from the computer due to a virus cannot be ruled out and that earlier the record pertaining to the same was manual and the record has not so far been updated in the computers -- Offending vehicle was otherwise, validly insured – Appeal at the instance of insurance company, dismissed.

(Para 12-15)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-involvement of vehicle – Ground of -- Vehicle's registration number had been mentioned by the eye-witnesses -- Statement was recorded by the police -- FIR was registered within 3 hours of the accident -- Argument that the vehicle was wrongly involved, is without any basis.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income of the 45 years old deceased was taken @ Rs.10,000/- per month -- Addition of 25% made to treat the income @ Rs.12,500/- p.m. -- Multiplier of 14 applied and 1/4th cut was put to assess the dependency at Rs.15,75,000/- -- Additional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium was also granted, to take the total to Rs.16,45,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum -- Since the stand of the claimants was that not only he was working as a Driver but also working as Clerk of two advocates and was also selling milk and thus, sustaining a large family of five members, argument raised that monthly income assessed @ Rs.10,000/- was a higher amount is without any basis -- Appeal dismissed in limine. Pranay Sethi’s case, 2018 (1) L.A.R. 1 (SC) relied.

(Para 9,10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 1, 166 -- Object of the Act – MV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accidents who suffer bodily injury or die untimely.

(Para 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Age of the claimant was 50 years 10 months and 26 days on the date of the accident not completed 51 years of age – Contention of Insurance Company that multiplier of '11' should be applied – Held, multiplier of '13' applied by Tribunal, while computing compensation on the basis that he was 50 years of age is as per dictum laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77 -- No intervention is called for -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of income – Children taking over business – Effect of -- Deceased was into the sale or trading business of water purifiers and not was manufacturing these water purifiers -- It cannot be said that the deceased had left some assets in respect of his business for his heirs to capitalise on -- In case the children of deceased, who were saddled with the responsibility of earning money, were able to do well in the business, it cannot be said that the income of deceased or dependency as worked, is required to be reduced.

(Para 8)

A. Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 3, 4 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -- Expiry of driving license – Non-renewal of – Injury to driver -- Liability of owner – Once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself -- It cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking up whether the driver has renewed the licence – Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- Here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck -- Appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three years – Proceedings here being under the Compensation Act, the consequences are not flowing to the first respondent as the initial negligent person.

(Para 1, 15-23)

B. Liability of Insurance Company to pay First – Recovery rights from Insured -- While protecting the rights of the claimants by asking the insurance company to deposit the amount, the recovery of the same from the insured would follow as the sympathy can only be for the victim of the accident -- Right which has to be protected, is of the victim and not the owner of the vehicle.

(Para 21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Victims’ appeal – Insurance company’s contention on merit – Right of –

-- Insurance company has not come up in appeal questioning the High Court’s finding on the heads of compensation and quantum of compensation -- These submissions of the insurance company cannot entertain at this stage.

-- Forum of first instance or the High Court did not return any finding on the first appellant being under influence of alcohol – Insurance company not permitted to raise this plea at this stage.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – Future prospects – No deduction for personal expenses -- Appellant survived though at present in almost “coma stage” – Contention for deduction towards personal living expenses rejected – Assessment of Rs.3500/- as monthly income affirmed -- 40% awarded for loss of future prospects -- Compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earning comes to Rs.9,40,800, Rs.7 lacs for medical attendant (Bystander) charges and further treatment cost, Rs.3 lacs for pain and suffering, Rs. 1500/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities alongwith Rs. 68,000/- as expenses for medicines and treatment, Rs.6,000/- as transportation charges and Rs.500/- as damage to clothing awarded – 9% interest from the date of filing claim petition u/s 166 also awarded.

(Para 4-10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Perks and allowance of employee -- Perks and allowances payable to the deceased employee benefiting him/his family members have to be included in computation of his monthly income and amounts deducted on account of HRA, CCA, Medical Allowance, EPF, GIS, LIC, re-payment of loan etc. are not liable to be excluded in such computation of his monthly income -- Tribunal was required to make statutory deduction of income tax from gross salary of the deceased for assessment of his income.

(Para 12)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased had total annual income of Rs.4,21,668/- -- As per rates of personal income tax, no income tax was payable on income upto Rs.2,50,000/- -- Rebate upto Rs.1,50,000/- was permissible u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act -- After such rebate income tax of Rs.2,200/- at the rate of 10% on rounded off taxable income of Rs.22,000/- was payable but in view of Section 87 of the Income Tax Act, rebate of Rs.5,000/- was admissible in case of taxable income being less than Rs.5,00,000/- -- Therefore, no income tax was payable and the Tribunal did not commit any error in not making any deduction from income of the deceased towards income tax.

(Para 12)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased Government employee – Future prospects – Deduction for dependency -- Deceased aged 53 years at the time of his death -- Since, the deceased was permanent Government employee addition of 15% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Dependents on the deceased being two (claimants widow and son) 1/3rd of the income of the deceased was required to be deducted.

(Para 13, 14)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Split multiplier -- Deceased being aged 53 years would have retired after seven years on attaining the age of 60 years -- In view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttamma’s case 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 443 there cannot be any application of split multiplier of 7 and 4 to split income of deceased as assessed for 7 years and half of the same for 4 years -- Multiplier of 11 has to be applied to income of the deceased at the time of his death as assessed.

(Para 15)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Pensionary Benefits – Deduction of -- Pension payable to widow of the deceased is not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable -- Similarly, any ex gratia amount paid by the employer to widow of the deceased is not deductible -- Deceased was employed in Delhi Development Authority – D.D.A. has not enacted any rules similar to Haryana 2006 Rules extending compassionate financial assistance to the dependents of its deceased employees by payment of sum equal to pay and allowances last drawn by the deceased employee – Widow getting amount of Rs.13,660/- per month as family pension from the department -- Observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court (Shashi Sharma's Case Shashi Sharma and others, IV(2016) ACC 340; 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 569) in regarding deduction of the amount of compassionate financial assistance out of the amount of compensation were not applicable to the facts of the present case -- Tribunal wrongly deducted amount of Rs.26,67,168/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.35,56,069/- payable to the appellants/claimants.

(Para 17-22)

F. Error in judicial order – Disciplinary proceedings – Requirement of -- Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and in view thereof provides for appeals and revisions – To err is human and no one is infallible -- A Judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born -- No action is required to be taken against any judicial officer for bona fide error -- Unless there are clear cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary proceedings are not to be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the Judicial Officer -- Role of superior courts is like a friend, philosopher and guide of the subordinate judiciary and the approach of the superior courts has to be correctional -- No complaint or any other material to show that the findings were animated by any mala fides or extreneous considerations so as to warrant any reference for disciplinary proceedings against the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on Administrative side.

(Para 23)

G. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 7.5% rate of interest on compensation -- Tribunal directed the payment of compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the whole amount -- Rate of inflation, change in economy, R.B.I.’s lending rate of interest, rate of interest allowed by Nationalized Banks on fixed deposit receipts and other relevant factors, direction by the Tribunal for payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum cannot be said to be unjust/illegal.

(Para 24)

H. Error in judicial order – Prevention in re-occurring -- Sometimes erroneous orders with errors in fact or law are passed by judicial officers -- It will be appropriate that the Judicial Officers are periodically sensitized for preventing recurrence of errors committed by them and avoiding errors frequently committed by other Judicial Officers -- Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh directed to periodically compile cases involving such erroneous orders passed by Judicial Officers by obtaining the requisite information from Registrar Vigilance or Registrar Judicial of High Court and the concerned District and Sessions Judges and point out the errors committed to the Judicial Officers during the Induction/Refresher Training Courses organized for them while making dedicated efforts of not disclosing the particulars of the concerned Judicial Officers and the cases involved, although it may not be possible to maintain absolute secrecy about the same in view of the reporting of judgments of this Court and uploading of the orders on the website of this Court as well as the concerned District Courts.

(Para 27)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Compensation under heading ‘Love and affection’ – Justification of -- It is now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ -- There is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’.

(Para 34, 35, 40)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident case – Compensation under heading ‘Loss of Consortium’ -- Whether it is only the wife who is entitled for consortium or the consortium can be awarded to children and parents also – Held, apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable -- Impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants does not warrant any interference. United India Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (2020) SCC Online 410 relied.

(Para 14, 39, 40)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rate of interest on award – Court find infirmity in impugned judgment, where interest granted is of 6% which generally the interest being granted is of 9% -- Impugned judgment held liable to be modified – Appeal allowed accordingly.

(Para 5-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability of whole body, 31.1% -- Loss of earning capacity – Future prospects -- Injuries to the appellant were grievous including fractures in the arms and legs and she suffered a disability of 31.1% of the whole body -- Age of the injured/appellant was 23 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability -- Future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration – Future prospects 50% of the actual salary taken – Compensation assessed to the extent of 31.1% disability payable with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

(Para 1, 7,8)