Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 applied making compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings awarded -- Tribunal awarded Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Income as per daily wages Rs.5,000/- taken – 40% future prospects – Deduction ½ -- Dependency assessed at Rs.3500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/- -- Conventional heads Rs.30,000/- -- Medical expenses Rs.2,51,000/- -- Total compensation comes to Rs.10,37,000/- -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,400/- will carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.02.2018

Medical Bill – Requirement of – Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 -- Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards disability is sufficient -- As regards medical expenses, no bill has been placed on record -- Yet considering the fact that she has got 25% disability to the whole body, it cannot be said no expense on medical bills, transportation and special diet would have been incurred -- Insurance Company is not in a position to deny this but states that in the absence of any evidence it would not be appropriate for the Court to award any amount -- Keeping in view the nature of injuries, Rs.30,000/- granted for medical expenses, for transportation and for special diet.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.03.2016

Expert evidence -- Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- 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, amount ordered to be released.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Not able to work as driver – Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again -- Appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability -- Multiplier applied for total loss of future earnings of the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Loss of only son, parents had to suffer mental shock -- Deceased, as per Indian customs, was to look after his parents in their old age -- In such circumstances, Rs. 5,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for loss of love and affection, future support granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Injury to Doctor -- Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering 60% permanent disability, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent -- Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -- Rs. 2,14,848/- for loss of salary during treatment in the year 2001-2002 -- Rs. 66,566/- for expenditure incurred in one Hospital and Rs. 20,000/- for second Hospital -- Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and sufferings -- Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment -- Rs. 28,500/- as special diet charges -- Grand Total: Rs.34,99,914/- rounded off 35,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

Accident within 30 days – Driving licence of driver held to be valid valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Claim petition at Gurugram -- Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Personal accident claim – Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Third party policy – No fault liability -- Deceased was borrower of the motorcycle, therefore, he stepped into shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as third party -- Claimants are not entitled to the compensation u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act, though the claimants are entitled to compensation for 'no fault liability' u/s 140 of the M.V. Act – Rs. 50,000/- awarded for ‘no fault liability’.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Obligation of Financer -- Borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place – Person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner -- High Court has erroneously opined that the financer had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it. Liability could not have mulcted on the financer.

(SC) Decided on: 01.12.2014

Heavy Transport Vehicle License – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.10.2021

Third party liability – Liability arising from the accident involving the vehicle entitled to ply in Nepal, the insurer of the vehicle would be very much liable to make the payment.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.11.2017

Driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Charge-sheet in criminal case -- Copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and the charge framed by the Court is available on record, which shows that respondent-driver has been charge sheeted for causing the injuries while driving the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner – Charge-sheet establishes that pillion rider has also suffered the injuries in this very accident – Driver of the tractor has stepped into the witness box and admitted that he is facing the trial in the criminal Court for causing this accident -- He also admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the tractor -- He has simply denied the accident and deposed that no accident has taken place with his tractor -- Bald statement of respondent-driver cannot rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on the mode of negligence and involvement of the vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Details of vehicle/ Driver missing in FIR – Mere fact that the vehicle number is not mentioned in the FIR, is of no consequence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Witness -- To prove the occurrence claimant examined “S” as a witness of the occurrence -- Witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, but he did not allow himself to dither away from the mainstay of the case -- Even in the judgment in criminal case the court acquitted the appellant by giving him a benefit of doubt – Award of compensation upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Merely acquittal would not absolve the insurance company of its responsibility to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Effect on claim petition -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Effect on claim petition -- Issue regarding negligence is to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case -- Subsequent acquittal of respondent-driver is no ground to upset the findings of the issue of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Effect on claim petition -- Deceased slipped/skidded from the motorcycle and it is the consistent stand of the relatives that there is no criminal intent -- However, after two days, when the patient died, the theory of involvement of the offending vehicle was coined and the same has been proved before the Tribunal -- However, when the case came up before the Criminal Court, the same very eye witness turned hostile so that the accused-driver is not put to any harm and thus cleverly the insurer of the offending vehicle has been made to be held liable to pay the compensation in the instant case – Held, there is a massive increase in such like cases of fraud -- High Court in its supervisory role has the onerous duty to cleanse the lower Courts of such fraudulent acts -- Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed -- Claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed -- Superintendent of Police is directed to investigate the matter and initiate the appropriate proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2016

Effect on claim petition -- Acquittal or conviction of driver of the offending vehicle by the criminal Court is hardly a circumstance to have bearing on the findings of the Tribunal because the Tribunal is expected to reach its conclusion on the basis of evidence brought before it by the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Comprehensive/Package policy -- Qua the claim for damages to third party liability; every policy has to be taken as 'Act Policy' only, since it is mandatory to be issued by the Insurance Company and it is mandatory to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act -- In that sense every policy, qua third party, can be said to be and has to be only an 'Act Policy' -- Classification created by the insurance company cannot be made a ground by it for avoiding liability arising from an insured vehicle, qua the damages to the third party, including passengers in private passenger car/pillion rider on a Motor Cycle -- IRDA does not have any authority to prescribe extra and separate amount even to cover the third party risk because that would tantamount to violation and dilution of the scope of compulsory Insurance prescribed under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of MV Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Examination of 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Wrongful loss -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Documents in additional evidence -- Documents sought to be produced by the appellants in the additional evidence were already available with them at the time of leading their evidence before the learned Tribunal -- Copy of appointment letter is not a document which is per se admissible -- No cogent reason has been given as to why these documents were not produced before the Tribunal -- Additional evidence, declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Judgment of earlier litigation – Contention of Plaintiff that the application was wrongly allowed which was for placing a judgement of the High Court on record arose out of the judgment in O.S. No.22 of 1970, which was not a part of the record in the Civil Court – Held no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff by the judgment being permitted to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal -- Appeal dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Failure to re-examine medically – High Court directed re-examination to know physical condition as on date -- Medical condition on the date of accident remains undisputed and was assessed to have suffered 9% disability qua whole body -- There is no challenge to this finding by the respondents -- If the claimant failed to get himself re-examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Burdon of proof -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

FIR author not examined – Non-reporting of accident to police by eye-witness -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

License of driver – According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Multiplier for dependency -- Age of deceased is relevant.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Deceased 28 years of age – Notional Income -- Future prospects – Consortium – Funeral expenses and loss of estate – Claimants are wife, minor daughter, father and sister of the deceased -- Notional income considered as 6,500/- per month, 40% added towards future prospects -- 1/3rd deducted towards personal expense – Multiplier of 17 applied – Claimant also held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father totaling Rs. 1,20,000/- -- Claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head (funeral expense and loss of estate) -- Appellants held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 13,78,790/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization towards the compensation for the death of the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2022

Multiplier for dependency -- Age of deceased is relevant.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Determination of – Widow of deceased stated that she was married to the deceased when she was 18 years old and her marriage lasted with him for about 12 years – Deceased was about 1-1/2 years older to her – In such event, the age of the deceased should have been more than 30 years – This part is not disputed by the other side – It is held that the age was between 31 and 35 years and in view of the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Injury to minor in motor vehicle accident – Shortening of leg by 1 inch of two minors with 30% / 20% permanent disability -- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- each towards permanent disability of the minors, Rs.25,000/- each to parents of minors towards agony of parents, Rs.25,000/- each for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) each for attendant and Rs.5,000/- each for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Liability to pay – Agreement between Transport Corporation and owner of Bus regarding liability on account of accident – Effect of – Held, it is only between the Corporation and the bus owner and does not bind anybody who is not privy to the aforesaid agreement, least of all, the victim -- Sum awarded by the MACT will be payable only by the Insurance Company with interest.

(SC) Decided on: 08.06.2020

Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased was an agriculturist and was managing his agricultural land himself, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month -- Since the age of the deceased was 43 years, there has to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects -- Deduction of 1/4th applied – Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to appellants for loss of love and affection -- A further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to widow for loss of consortium – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

No fault liability – Liability of Insurance Company with recovery rights -- In case of death in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation for liability without fault -- It has been made Rs.50,000/- by Amending Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 from Rs.25,000/- -- Accident occurred earlier to 1994 i.e. on 23.6.1991 – Rs.25,000/- is liable to be granted to the appellants -- Though the liability of the Insurance Company as per its policy is limited to Rs.20,000/-, however, it is liable to pay the entire amount and recover the excess amount from the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle injury case – When this matter was listed, neither the counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant was present on a number of dates of hearing despite granting several opportunities to him -- Keeping in view Article 39A of the Constitution of India, amicus curiae was appointed on behalf of the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Future medical expenses -- Appellant would require three more replacements of the artificial left leg during his lifetime – High Court erred in granting Rs.50,000/- only for future medical expenses – Amount enhanced by Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to that granted by the High Court.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Physical Functional disability – Consideration of -- Physical functional disability of the left leg was assessed at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% -- Earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced – It is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body -- Appellant is held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Amputation of left leg at the age of 29 years – As per Medical certificate, appellant sustained a permanent disability of 90% -- Courts below reduced the permanent disability to 60% on the ground that the remaining body of the appellant is healthy -- 90% permanent disability due to the accident is liable to be maintained -- Considering the appellant’s annual income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., 90% of it would come to Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17, he would be entitled under the head of ‘permanent disability’ to compensation computed at Rs. 3,67,200/- -- Appellant is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the artificial limb -- Appellant is also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2017

Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability – Salary of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/- p.m. -- Annual income of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/-x12 = Rs.50,400/ -- 30% added towards future prospects Rs.50,400/- + 30% = Rs.65,520/- -- Applying multiplier of 15, compensation amounted to Rs.9,82,800/- -- Compensation for future treatment as Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings as Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and medical treatment as Rs.3,01,320/- awarded -- Total compensation awarded as Rs.17,84,120/- -- Enhanced amount of Compensation is (Rs.17,84,120/-)-(Rs.5,31,440/-) = Rs.12,52,680/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,52,680/- shall be payable within a period of two months -- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Unmarried at the time of accident – Appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account medical expenses as undoubtedly no expense was incurred, treatment having been afforded by the Navy itself – Appellant become unfit for Sea Service but fit for Shore Service with restrictions held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- detail of which is as follows : Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs.1,00,000/- -- Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- -- Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- -- Disability on account of amputation of toes Rs.50,000/- -- Grand Total = Rs.3,50,000/- -- Claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Any person – 'Any person' cannot mean anything 'less than any person' -- Likewise 'Any liability' cannot mean anything 'less than Any liability' -- Hence this clause covers every liability of insured qua every person – Section 147(1)(b)(i) of MV Act to include even the passengers travelling in private passenger car and pillion rider of a motorcycle.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Any liability – 'Any person' cannot mean anything 'less than any person' -- Likewise 'Any liability' cannot mean anything 'less than Any liability' -- Hence this clause covers every liability of insured qua every person – Section 147(1)(b)(i) of MV Act to include even the passengers travelling in private passenger car and pillion rider of a motorcycle.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Interference in interest @ 9% p.a. -- Simple Interest on awarded amount @ 9% given by the Tribunal – High Court found no ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Withdrawal amount exceeds – Effect of -- If the amount withdrawn by the claimants exceeds the amount to which they are entitled under this judgment, no recoveries shall be made.

(SC) Decided on : 02.02.2018

Insurance Company’s right to appeal -- Insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle – Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the award primarily on the quantum of compensation liable to be dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law -- That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal -- As is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well considered opinion and a plausible view -- High Court has not adverted to any specific reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not supported by the evidence on record – Nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts – Finding of the Tribunal restored.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Just and reasonable compensation – When under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, Supreme Court do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 23.01.2017

When the matter was listed, neither the counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant was present on a number of dates of hearing despite granting several opportunities to him -- Keeping in view Article 39A of the Constitution of India, amicus curiae was appointed on behalf of the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Contributory negligence – Indicator for turn was not given -- Corporation bus was turning to its right side without showing the turn indicator to enter the bus depot -- Tribunal and the High Court have erred in the apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus – Accident was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle of the Corporation – Erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal & concurring with the same by the High Court on the question of contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Deceased was less than 27 years -- 50% future prospects added towards his income -- 10% deducted towards income tax -- 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses – Multiplier of 17 shall be applicable -- Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to widow, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses -- Minor son of the deceased held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance and Rs. 50,000/- to mother on account of loss of love and affection -- Total amount of compensation Rs.42,95,840/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

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.

(SC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – 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 -- Court did not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal; in this regard.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Proof of income -- Claim of earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. while working as a 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Income tax return – Proof of -- Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependents – A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department shows that the date of filing the ITR was prior to the death of the deceased -- Hence, the High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07 while assessing the income of the deceased -- ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 reflects the income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. made basis for computing the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Minimum wages -- Deceased about 40 years aged was working as a Scrap Dealer resident of Kaithal, Haryana -- Accident took place on 28.08.2018, in this part of the country, a unskilled construction labourer charges more than Rs.400/- per day – Rs.12,000/- p.m. assessed by MACT, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Minimum wages -- Deceased was aged 23 years at the time of the accident -- Employed in a proprietary concern on a monthly salary of Rs.9600/- -- Sole proprietor of the concern was examined and the salary certificate was marked -- Tribunal specifically recorded a finding that there was no reason to discard the testimony – High Court proceeded to take the minimum wages paid for the unskilled workers at the relevant point of time as the benchmark – Held, High Court ought not to have chosen a theoretical presumption relating to the minimum wages fixed for unskilled employment -- Interference made by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, was uncalled for -- Order of High Court set aside and award of the Tribunal restored.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Death of student -- Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Taking a clue from notification issued by the State of Haryana fixing minimum wage at the relevant time coupled with educational qualification of the deceased, income of deceased is assessed at Rs. 4800/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

No income proof -- State of Haryana fixed minimum wage vide notification at the relevant time, income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.6000/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Minimum wages – Income above minimum wages -- High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- Finding affirmed.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Assessment of income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m sustained.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Permanent disability -- In case of permanent disability, the compensation towards permanent disability as well as loss of earning capacity on account of said permanent disability have to be assessed independently – Determination of compensation for loss of earning capacity on the basis of multiplier method is proper -- In determination of compensation, some guess work and hypothetical considerations based on sympathy can be worked out, but ultimate determination has to be considered with some objective standards -- Endeavor should be to award just compensation keeping in view the sufferings of the injured person.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Welder-employee deceased -- Simply because minimum wage rate prevalent at the time of accident in the State of Punjab was to the tune of Rs.4000/-, does not mean that deceased was not earning more than the minimum wage rate -- From the evidence on record it is established that deceased was working as a Welder on a monthly salary of Rs.6500/- per month – Income assessed to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal, requires no interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Income tax returns downloaded from internet – Whether secondary evidence -- Income tax officer stated as PW that now no signed return is required to be filed by an assessee -- Return is filed online and the reports Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 have been processed and finalized by the department – Held, merely because the returns were downloaded from the internet would not make them secondary evidence -- Returns proved in due process of law and the documents were very much admissible in evidence – Income of deceased taken as per ITR.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Statement of widow that her husband was earning Rs.3200/- p.m. after deducting his personal expenditure does not mean that income of deceased was not upto Rs.40,000/- -- Income of the deceased assessed as Rs.3200/- per month i.e. Rs.38,400/- per annum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2016

Deceased had set up a milk chilling center and had been operating the same -- As per the chart circulated by the Labour Department, Punjab, the minimum income for the highly skilled upper labourer comes to Rs.3,304/- -- Ends of justice would be adequately met, in case, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

No income proof -- Deceased aged 32 years – Date of accident 4.2.2009 -- In the absence of income proof income taken as Rs.3500/- and making provision for future increase, the average income is taken as Rs. 4550/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Agriculturist deceased -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased was an agriculturist and was managing his agricultural land himself, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Carpenter deceased -- Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month is inadequate being less than the minimum wages -- At the age of the deceased the amount fixed at minimum wage at least deserves to be granted -- Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4400/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Household lady aged about 45 years – Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Services rendered by a housewife cannot be less valued than what a daily wager can earn -- Considering the relevant facts the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1500/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Bachelor deceased – Presumed to be 18 year old at the time of death -- Monthly income of deceased was assessed as Rs.3000/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

Permanent disability -- Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – Salary assessed as Rs.10000 per month, Annual Salary came to be Rs.1,20,000/- -- 50% added towards Future Prospects (23 years of age) 120000 + 50% = Rs.1,80,000/- -- Disability 75% Rs.180000 X 75% = Rs.1,35,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Carpenter deceased -- Treated as a labourer and his income was assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Carpenter deceased -- Evidence shows deceased was a Carpenter by profession -- Tribunal has not held that he was not a Carpenter -- Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- -- Even if the income of the deceased is to be taken as a labourer, even then his income has been assessed on lower side -- Income of the deceased assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2015

Injury to Doctor with 60 % disability – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering the fact that 60% permanent disability and over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

55% disability of driver – Contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Housewife -- Deceased was a housewife and a home maker – Taking deceased as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Salary certificate of Pvt. Firm -- No proof that the deceased was working in a private firm as Accountant with monthly salary of Rs.4500/- -- Witness appeared from some firm and stated that the deceased was working with them and brought the salary certificate which was produced as Ex.P1 -- However, no record of the firm was produced to show that the deceased was appointed by the firm and was being paid salary regularly -- Merely preparing a document as salary certificate and producing it would not be sufficient proof of salary -- Tribunal rightly discarded the evidence and held that deceased was a labourer and took his income according to the wages prevalent at that time.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

No proof of income -- No evidence to show that the deceased had an income of Rs.20,000/- per month – Considering him labourer, the minimum wages in Punjab in 2011 were Rs.4,108/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Medical Student – Future income assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 25.09.2014

No proof of income -- Claimants could not prove on record the income of deceased to be Rs.7,000/-, per month -- Accident pertains to the year 1989, therefore, the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2014

Income Tax Return – Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Physical Functional disability – Physical functional disability of the left leg was assessed at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% -- Earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced – It is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body -- Appellant is held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Amputation of left leg at the age of 29 years – As per Medical certificate, appellant sustained a permanent disability of 90% -- Courts below reduced the permanent disability to 60% on the ground that the remaining body of the appellant is healthy -- 90% permanent disability due to the accident is liable to be maintained.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2017

Driver’s 55% permanent disability – Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25%.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges beside other compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Minor child injured with 100% injuries – Child aged 14 years left with mentally deranged and physically incapacitated to move and is bed ridden – Doctors on assessment have declare him 100% disabled -- Besides other compensation, Rs.10,80,000/- towards 'attendant charges granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Poultry labourer – Injury with 25% disability -- Besides other compensation, Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attendant charges.

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Injury to Doctor with 60 % disability – Besides other compensation, Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment granted.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

Besides other compensation, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant expenses (17 months) awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Applicant has suffered 65% disability – Besides other compensation, Rs.30,000/- for attendant granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Liability of Insurance company -- Whether the gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Income of the deceased Rs.12,455/- p.m minus the applicable income tax -- No deduction is to be made from the salary qua other allowances etc. -- Multiplier of 16 and the eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50% -- Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for 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% p.a. awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Unskilled worker – Old Father and unmarried sister -- Income above minimum wages – High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- 40% added towards future prospects -- 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses -- Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister -- An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister granted – Multiplier of 18 applied -- Total compensation awarded Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Assessment of income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m sustained -- Multiplier should be 17 -- Addition of 40% towards future prospects would also be warranted -- Since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs 8,56,800/- -- Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses also awarded -- Compensation stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/- -- Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased was working as Assistant Teacher -- Aged 29 years old, in 2006 -- Correct multiplier would be 17 – As regards future prospects, an addition of 50 per cent would be warranted -- Making a deduction of 50 per cent towards personal expenses (the deceased being a bachelor), the total compensation would stand quantified at Rs 61,20,000/- -- After making an addition on account of conventional heads, the total compensation would stand computed at Rs 61,90,000/- -- Aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Future prospects -- Deceased was unmarried and aged about 23 years at the time of his demise – 50% deducted from his income towards personal and living expenses – 50% on account of future prospects cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of any matter/reference before the Hon'ble Supreme Court qua compensation on account of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Age of deceased -- Presumed to be 18 years old at the time of death -- Monthly income of deceased was assessed as Rs.3000/- per month -- 50% added as future prospects [Rs.3000/- + Rs.1500/-] Rs. 4500/- per month -- 50% deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased [Rs.4500/-] - [Rs.2250/-]=Rs.2250/- per month -- Compensation after multiplier of 16 was applied [Rs.2250/-x12x16] Rs.4,32,000/- -- For loss of love and affection awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- for each parent) -- Funeral expenses awarded as Rs.25,000/- -- Total compensation awarded is Rs.5,57,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.5,57,000/-) - (Rs.2,90,000/-) = Rs.2,67,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

Deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses -- Multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17 – By taking monthly income as Rs.12,000 with future prospects of 50% increase total compensation will be assessed as : (Rs.12,000 + Rs.6000) x 50% x 17 = Rs.18,36,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 15.05.2015

Deceased was bachelor aged 18 years – 50% appreciation for future prospects required to be given – 50% is deducted as personal expenses -- Multiplier should be as per age of deceased not as per age of dependent parents in view of Sarla Verma’s case 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 – Multiplier of 18 upheld – Claimants are also entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1 lac on account of love and affection to the parents and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2015

Deceased was unmarried boy aged 21 years, a Constable with Punjab Police – Claim petition by parents and the minor sister – Salary Rs.2,300/- p.m., addition of 50% had to be made towards future prospects and the total income would come to Rs.3450/- -- Deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made -- Annual contribution would come to Rs.20,700/- and applying the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the parents, the compensation would come to Rs.2,27,700/- -- A sum of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added as loss of estate; raising the total to be Rs.2,42,700/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Deceased was unmarried boy aged 21 years, a Constable with Punjab Police – Claim petition by parents and the minor sister – Salary Rs.2,300/- p.m., addition of 50% had to be made towards future prospects and the total income would come to Rs.3450/- -- Deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made -- Annual contribution would come to Rs.20,700/- and applying the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the parents, the compensation would come to Rs.2,27,700/- -- A sum of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added as loss of estate; raising the total to be Rs.2,42,700/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Deduction for personal and living expenses – Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family -- However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- 50% added under the head of future prospects to the annual income – Deducting 10% tax net annual income comes to Rs.2,45,511/- -- Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674 X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/- -- Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs.25,000/- granted – For love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- awarded -- Courts below have erred in not granting the interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. – Total compensation payable to the appellants will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Third party – No fault liability – Claim against owner/Insurance company – Maintainability of – Deceased cannot be said to be third party and cannot maintain a claim u/s 163-A of the Act as deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle -- Claim petition u/s 163A of the Act against the owner and insurance company shall not be maintainable -- Claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh only as per the terms of the contract of insurance with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

(SC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Comprehensive policy -- Claimant/driver was an income tax assessee and his annual income was more than Rs.40,000/- -- A borrower of the vehicle from the owner gets no right of claim against the owner or insurer, unless the accident was on account of any latent defect in the vehicle and the owner was responsible for any accident on account of such defects – Petition is not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Third party policy – No fault liability -- Deceased was borrower of the motorcycle, therefore, he stepped into shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as third party -- Thus, the claimants are not entitled to the compensation u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act, though the claimants are entitled to compensation for 'no fault liability' u/s 140 of the M.V. Act – Rs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2015

Personal accident claim – Accident by borrower/brother of owner of vehicle -- Accident had not taken place with the involvement of any other vehicle but because a cow had come in front of motorcycle all of a sudden and in order to save the cow he lost his balance and fell on the road and sustained injuries -- Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Due care by 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 -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Invalid driving license – Onus of proof – Recovery right -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Validity of Driving License from Nagaland – Submission by insurance company that since driver belongs to Amritsar, he was not competent to submit an application before an authority in Nagaland for issuance of licence -- Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Gratuitous Passengers – Unpaid/Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger cars/pillion rider on motor cycle are required to be compulsorily covered under Compulsory Insurance -- Passengers carried for hire or reward in public service vehicles has always been covered under the Compulsory Insurance qua third party -- Claim of paid/non-Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger car is excluded due to this being a defense available to Insurance Company under the Section 149 of the New Act -- Even in case of Goods Carriage' the concept of Gratuitous Passengers does not survive anymore -- In their case also it is carrying the passengers, per se, whether Gratuitous or paid, which is not permissible -- Hence the distinction of Gratuitous Passenger is no more any plea in case of Goods Carriage as well -- The concept of 'Gratuitous Passengers' does not survive under the New Motor Vehicle Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Duty of owner – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

License of driver – Adverse inference -- According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Principle of “pay and recover” -- Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Onus of proof -- When the license was proved by driver, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving -- Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

(SC) Decided on: 13.07.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Third party risk – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Renewal of Fake license – Liability of Employer -- Whether the employer/owner has taken proper precautions before employing driver to drive school mini bus -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

License of Light Motor Vehicle – Driver had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle – No breach of any condition of insurance policy, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2014

Invalid driving license – Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Maintainability of claim petition -- Where the parents of the deceased are not alive, his brothers and sisters, being his legal representatives, can come forward and claim compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Rash and negligent driving by other vehicle – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Breach of policy – Invalid driving license – Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Invalid driving license – Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Proof of Head on collision/ Contributory negligence – FIR was registered on the very next day at the instance of PW-2 -- It was specifically recorded that the offending vehicle was coming on wrong side and hit the car from front -- Evidence produced by the claimants was not rebutted by the insurer -- In cases under the Act, onus of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases -- Claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Held, claimants have been able to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Driving license – Liability of insurance company -- Owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having valid driving licence -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Driving license – Onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Proof of Driving license – Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

(SC) Decided on: 13.07.2016

Accident with stationary vehicle – In the stationary vehicle parked in any public place a duly licensed driver should be in the driver seat, unless the mechanism of the vehicle has been stopped and brakes have been applied – Onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy – So, it was for the Insurance Company to establish that the mechanism of the vehicle was operating though it was stationary when the accident took place, but no such evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company -- Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Insured as witness -- Onus is on Insurance company to call insured -- If the claimants were trying to place on record the evidence to say that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the driver, the insurer to place best possible evidence -- Insured was not a stranger to the insurer -- Motor Vehicles Act enables the insurer to secure details of the accident from the insured u/s 133 and it would be perfectly competent for the insurer to secure the presence of the insured to give evidence that could have suited the insurer's purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Breach of policy – Renewal of Fake license -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Continuation of business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Deceased aged 21 years – Income assessed at Rs.5,000/- -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of 50% increase towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Rajesh’s case (2013) 9 SCC 54 -- Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency’, would come to Rs.5,000/- + 50% X 12 X ½ X 18 = Rs.8,10,000/- -- Furthermore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is awarded to the appellant-mother of the deceased, on account of loss of love and affection, if she is alive -- Disbursement of amount of compensation towards 'future prospects' shall be subject to furnishing requisite indemnity bonds by the claimants as the question of admissibility of future prospects to daily wagers/self-employed persons is pending adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.16735 of 2014.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.05.2016

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month is inadequate being less than the minimum wages -- At the age of the deceased the amount fixed at minimum wage at least deserves to be granted -- Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4400/- per month -- Deceased Vikram was 19 years of age at the time of his death -- Keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh’s 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 170 (SC), an addition of 50% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Multiplier of 18 deserves to be applied – Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' would come to Rs.4400/- + 50% X 12 X 18 X 1/2 = Rs.7,12,800/- -- Following the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar’s case (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased carpenter was treated as a labourer and his income was assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month – Addition of 50% for future prospect, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Tribunal has not held that he was not a Carpenter -- Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- -- Even if the income of the deceased is to be taken as a labourer, even then his income has been assessed on lower side -- Income of the deceased assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month – In the age group of 46 to 50 years, the multiplier of thirteen should be applied -- Tribunal has correctly made deduction of 1/3rd as there are three claimants -- After deducting 1/3rd , the monthly income comes to Rs.3,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 13 years, the compensation comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/- -- For loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1 Lac is awarded -- Claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses -- Similarly, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.1 Lac in total for love and affection -- Total compensation comes to Rs.6,93,000/- alongwith @6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2015

Doctor’s evidence -- Accident took place on 21.5.2010 and injured got admitted in hospital on 21.6.2010 – Doctor stated that it was a known case of chronic heart disease and alcoholic liver disease and deceased died a natural death and has no relation with the alleged accidental injuries – Held, courts are no experts for determining cause of death -- If court make inference about the cause of death as due to an accident, it invariably look to the fact of accident and the proximate cause for the death and wherever postmortem is done, the report of the Doctor regarding the cause of death – It will be wholly wrong for a Tribunal to discard Doctor's evidence and enter a pure realm of conjecture to determine cause for death – Award passed in favour of claimant is result of misplaced sympathy – Award is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Rule 9 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 14, 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.10.2021

Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Future prospects -- Deceased aged 21 years – Income assessed at Rs.5,000/- -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of 50% increase towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Rajesh’s case (2013) 9 SCC 54 -- Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency’, would come to Rs.5,000/- + 50% X 12 X ½ X 18 = Rs.8,10,000/- -- Furthermore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is awarded to the appellant-mother of the deceased, on account of loss of love and affection, if she is alive -- Disbursement of amount of compensation towards 'future prospects' shall be subject to furnishing requisite indemnity bonds by the claimants as the question of admissibility of future prospects to daily wagers/self-employed persons is pending adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.16735 of 2014.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.05.2016

Rule 14, Form 4 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(21), (23), 166 – Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- License of Light Motor Vehicle – Driver had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle – No breach of any condition of insurance policy, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2014

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Interest @ 9% p.a. -- Interference in – Simple Interest on awarded amount @ 9% given by the Tribunal – High Court found no ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Finding of Tribunal – Possible view – Setting aside of -- Tribunal duly considered the evidence and the material accompanying the charge-sheet filed, as also the plea taken by the insurer and the evidence of RW-1 – Held, conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible view, which could not have been disturbed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the insurer.

(SC) Decided on : 28.03.2018

Insurance Company’s right to appeal -- Insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle – Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the award primarily on the quantum of compensation liable to be dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Rash and negligence driving – Version in DDR – Evidential value of -- In DDR, the claimant stated that the accident had taken place by chance and there was no fault on part of anyone -- Only evidence available with regard to the cause of accident on the record is the affidavit of the claimant stating therein that his motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending car rashly, negligently and in a high speed -- Neither driver of car on his own stepped into the witness box to controvert the deposition of the claimant nor the appellant-insurance company made any effort to examine him to elicit that there was no element of rash and negligent driving involved in the accident – Offending car held liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Proof of accident -- Copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and the charge framed by the Court is available on record, which shows that respondent-driver has been charge sheeted for causing the injuries while driving the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner – Charge-sheet establishes that pillion rider has also suffered the injuries in this very accident – Driver of the tractor has stepped into the witness box and admitted that he is facing the trial in the criminal Court for causing this accident -- He also admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the tractor -- He has simply denied the accident and deposed that no accident has taken place with his tractor -- Bald statement of respondent-driver cannot rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on the mode of negligence and involvement of the vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Permanent disability – Principle of multiplier -- Appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well -- Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age -- There is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method – Appellant aged 30 years -- Multiplier of 17 would be admissible -- Keeping in view that the permanent disability is 70%, the compensation under this head would be worked out at Rs.14,28,000 -- For mental and physical agony and frustration and disappointment towards life, amount enhanced to Rs.1,30,000, besides other expenses.

(SC) Decided on: 02.02.2017

Injury to 10 year old child – 5% disability -- Claimant has suffered 5% permanent disability -- Claimant-appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- [Rs.90,000-(towards permanent disability) + Rs.15,000/- (towards pain and sufferings, special diet etc.) + Rs.25,000/- (towards loss of studies) + Rs.50,000 (towards loss of future).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

Minor child injured with 100% injuries – Child aged 14 years left with mentally deranged and physically incapacitated to move and is bed ridden – Doctors on assessment have declare him 100% disabled -- Besides other compensation, Rs.10,80,000/- towards 'attendant charges granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Notional income -- A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per the figure given for a non-earning individuals in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Shortening of leg by 1 inch of two minors with 30% / 20% permanent disability -- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- each towards permanent disability of the minors, Rs.25,000/- each to parents of minors towards agony of parents, Rs.25,000/- each for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) each for attendant and Rs.5,000/- each for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Maintainability of claim petition -- Where the parents of the deceased are not alive, his brothers and sisters, being his legal representatives, can come forward and claim compensation on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident -- Nephews of the deceased, were not entitled to get any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Accident at Rajasthan – Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Maintainability of – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- These would be two different and independent remedies available to a person -- Whatever the dependents are getting is partly a product of the contribution made by the employee himself during his life time and partly the contribution of employer -- Employer of the deceased employee may be absolved of any liability of making any payment under any other law relating to the employment injury; qua to the entitlement of the deceased as an employee, however, such periodic payment, which is in the nature of family pension, would not absolve a stranger to the employment from discharging its independent liability created under any other statute -- No provision has been made by the legislature in the Motor Vehicle Act to specifically exclude the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle; in case of motor vehicle accident; if the dependents of the employee are getting compensation or benefits under ESI Act (unlike compensation under Workmen Compensation Act) in the capacity of the deceased being an employee -- Despite the fact that the dependents of the employee may be having some benefits under the ESI Act in the capacity of the deceased being an employee would not debar them from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Maintainability of -- If the relation between the claimant and the Insurance Company is of a stranger then the claim petition by such a person against such an Insurance Company shall not be barred by Section 53 of ESI Act -- “Any Person” in Section 53 has to be read as a person/entity to whom this Act applies -- Section 61 prohibits only receiving twice the 'similar benefits' by an employee with respect to his employment injuries, nothing beyond that – Bar created by Section 53 would be applicable only in case injuries sustained by of injured/deceased is an employment injury and the same is sustained by injured/deceased in his capacity as employee and only if he is claiming subsequent compensation in his capacity as an employee under this Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Maintainability of – Employment injury – Mere incorporation of the Section 51E cannot, per se, exclude the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act for an accident which happened during the time when person was, allegedly, going to his home after the duty hours -- Ingredients of Section 51 E of the Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 has to be pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company to invoke Section 53 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Liability of owner – Liability is always joint and several and if the dismissal of the claim against the driver was not on merits, but was for failure to take steps to serve him – Employer / owner of the vehicle cannot avail the benefit of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Nature of -- Claim petition filed under the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a complete Code in itself.

(SC) Decided on: 16.11.2018

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 21-- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Additional evidence – Permissibility of -- Documents sought to be produced by the appellants in the additional evidence were already available with them at the time of leading their evidence before the learned Tribunal -- Copy of appointment letter is not a document which is per se admissible -- No cogent reason has been given as to why these documents were not produced before the Tribunal -- Additional evidence, declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Order 20 Rule 4(2), Order 41, Rule 31, Section 96 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Award of Tribunal – First Appeal – Duty of First Appellate Court/ High Court – An appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence -- High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how, and if not, why? -- As a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute -- Impugned judgment also does not, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons -- Impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable – Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2016

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 21 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Package/comprehensive policy -- Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of the accident and was owner of commercial vehicle -- Tribunal has added 50% of his income towards future prospects -- Income of the transporters always increases with the passage of time as freights are increasing day by day -- Thus, there was very bright prospects of the increase in the income of the deceased in future -- No fault can be found in adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal in order to assess the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2016

No fault liability – Liability of Insurance Company with recovery rights -- In case of death in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation for liability without fault -- It has been made Rs.50,000/- by Amending Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 from Rs.25,000/- -- Accident occurred earlier to 1994 i.e. on 23.6.1991 – Rs.25,000/- is liable to be granted to the appellants -- Though the liability of the Insurance Company as per its policy is limited to Rs.20,000/-, however, it is liable to pay the entire amount and recover the excess amount from the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Role of negligence -- Sole submission by Insurance company that as the deceased himself contributed to the happening of accident, claimants are not entitled for compensation to the negligence attributed to the deceased – Held, contention is not meritorious because in a claim filed u/s 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal cannot examine if the occurrence is result of default or neglect of victim or deceased – Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

No-fault liability -- Motor vehicle accident claim case – There are three Sections, which empower the Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163A and Section 166 of the Act -- Section 140 deals with the cases for award of compensation based on the principle of no fault liability -- Section 163A of the Act deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation and is based on structured formula as specified in Second Schedule appended to the Act -- While claiming compensation payable under Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person concerned against whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A (2) of the Act.

(SC) Decided on: 16.11.2018

Right of -- Insurance Company’s liability -- Deceased was sitting on mudguard of Tractor -- Insurance Company is not liable for the claim on account of death of person, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and died -- Tractor is meant only for one person i.e.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2015

No-fault liability -- Motor vehicle accident claim case – There are three Sections, which empower the Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163A and Section 166 of the Act -- Section 140 deals with the cases for award of compensation based on the principle of no fault liability -- Section 163A of the Act deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation and is based on structured formula as specified in Second Schedule appended to the Act -- While claiming compensation payable under Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person concerned against whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4) and Section 163A (2) of the Act.

(SC) Decided on: 16.11.2018

Charge-sheet in FIR -- Though Police has registered a case against driver of the tempo and has filed a chargesheet but the same cannot be said to be conclusive -- Car had dashed the tempo on the middle portion near footstep -- Thus the method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that both the drivers were negligent -- Both the eye witnesses have stated Maruti Car was in excessive speed, however, it appears driver of tempo also could not remove his vehicle from the way of Maruti Car -- Thus, both the drivers were clearly negligent and it was a case of composite negligence -- Both the drivers were joint ‘tort-feasors’, thus, liable to make payment of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Claimant’s right to recover compensation – (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence -- In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants. Balakrishnan’s case 2013 ACJ 199 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants. Balakrishnan’s case 2013 ACJ 199 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased was driving motorcycle – Claim petition against owner of motorcycle / Insurance company – Held, the instant policy being a comprehensive policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2019

Act only policy -- Third party liability -- Attempt of the insurance companies to avoid statutory liability by creating artificial distinction of Comprehensive/Package policy and the alleged 'Act only policy' does not stand legal scrutiny under the provisions of the New Act -- Qua the claim for damages to third party liability; every policy has to be taken as 'Act Policy' only, since it is mandatory to be issued by the Insurance Company and it is mandatory to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act -- In that sense every policy, qua third party, can be said to be and has to be only an 'Act Policy' -- Classification created by the insurance company cannot be made a ground by it for avoiding liability arising from an insured vehicle, qua the damages to the third party, including passengers in private passenger car/pillion rider on a Motor Cycle -- IRDA does not have any authority to prescribe extra and separate amount even to cover the third party risk because that would tantamount to violation and dilution of the scope of compulsory Insurance prescribed under Section 147(1)(b)(i).

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Borrower of vehicle -- A borrower of the vehicle from the owner gets no right of claim against the owner or insurer, unless the accident was on account of any latent defect in the vehicle and the owner was responsible for any accident on account of such defects – Petition is not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Driver dashed against a culvert -- Claimant income was more than Rs.8,000/- per month and he could not have maintained the petition under Section 163-A – High Court take it that the petition is filed under a wrong premise, for, as far as the passenger is concerned, the accident speaks of the negligence of the driver in a typical res ipsa loquitur situation -- Negligence of the driver is writ large and the passenger ought to have been provided for injuries suffered in the accident – High Court treat it as a petition u/s 166 of the Act and allow for the retention of the award against the insurer.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Pillion rider – Liability of Insurance Company -- Package policy that provided the insurance cover to the representatives of the deceased pillion rider, the liability of the insurer is inescapable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Pillion rider – Negligence – Proof of -- There was a package policy that covered risk for pillion rider as well -- Two wheeler fell down by the inability of the driver of the motor cycle to keep a proper balance and it must be taken as negligence of the driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014

Gratuitous Passengers – Unpaid/Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger cars/pillion rider on motor cycle are required to be compulsorily covered under Compulsory Insurance -- Passengers carried for hire or reward in public service vehicles has always been covered under the Compulsory Insurance qua third party -- Concept of 'Gratuitous Passengers' does not survive under the New Motor Vehicle Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Third party – Passenger car – Motor cycle – Passenger travelling in private passenger car and a pillion rider on a Motor Cycle are entitled to raise a claim against the owner/insurer for the injury sustained while travelling in such car or as a pillion rider on such Motor Vehicle -- However, to sustain their claim as third party such passenger in private passenger car or such pillion rider shall have to plead and prove that the owner/driver of such private passenger car or the Motor Cycle has been negligent in driving the said car or the motor cycle at the time of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Employed driver gave the vehicle to minor without consent of the owner – Effect of – Insurance Company was not given right to recover the compensation amount from the owner by the M.A.C.T. – Order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on:16.05.2019

Compensation in Motor Vehicle accident case – Deceased 6 months old son -- Loss of only son, parents had to suffer mental shock -- Deceased, as per Indian customs, was to look after his parents in their old age -- In such circumstances, Rs. 5,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for loss of love and affection, future support granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 142 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependent -- A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department shows that the date of filing the ITR was prior to the death of the deceased -- Hence, the High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07 while assessing the income of the deceased -- ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 reflects the income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. made basis for computing the compensation – Future prospects 40% and deduction towards his personal expenses made by 1/4th -- Multiplier adopted at 16 is appropriate -- Under the conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- (Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- + Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- + Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-) awarded – Total compensation comes to Rs.17,50,000/- -- Though the claimant did not file appeal before the High Court, Supreme Court by exercising powers under Article 142 enhanced the same to do complete justice between the parties – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. awarded from date of filing the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Article 142 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Unskilled worker – Income above minimum wages -- Future prospects -- Nature of employment of deceased-- Deceased was unmarried 24 years old – Old Father and unmarried sister – Dependency of -- Future Prospects of 40% given -- Deduction towards personal expenses -- Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, unmarried sister, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased affirmed -- High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- Finding affirmed -- Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection awarded by High Court, affirmed -- Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000 -- Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation -- Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant – In exercise of power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister -- An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister each granted -- Total compensation awarded Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Article 136 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Just and reasonable compensation – Interference at Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme court -- When under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, Supreme Court do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 23.01.2017

Article 39A -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Amicus Curiae -- Compensation in motor vehicle injury case – When this matter was listed, neither the counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant was present on a number of dates of hearing despite granting several opportunities to him -- Keeping in view Article 39A of the Constitution of India, amicus curiae was appointed on behalf of the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Article 142 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – More than claimed amount – Right of -- Against the award passed by the tribunal even though the claimants have not preferred any appeal and even though the claimants have then prayed for compensation of Rs.2,96,480/-, for doing complete justice to the parties – Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,47,000/ to the claimants.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Businessman deceased -- Argument that claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Travelling in bus -- Appellant-claimant travelling in the bus cannot be held to be contributory negligent by any stretch of imagination.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2016

Triple riding on two wheeler/ motor cycle -- Triple riding may be a traffic offence but mere triple riding on a two wheeler/motorcycle without any further proof of negligence on the part of the motorcyclist contributing to the accident, is no ground to held the occupants of the motorcycle to be contributory negligent for the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2016

Chargesheet in FIR -- Though Police has registered a case against driver of the tempo and has filed a chargesheet but the same cannot be said to be conclusive -- Car had dashed the tempo on the middle portion near footstep -- Thus the method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that both the drivers were negligent -- Both the eye witnesses have stated Maruti Car was in excessive speed, however, it appears driver of tempo also could not remove his vehicle from the way of Maruti Car -- Thus, both the drivers were clearly negligent and it was a case of composite negligence -- Both the drivers were joint ‘tort-feasors’, thus, liable to make payment of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Claimant’s right to recover compensation – (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Contributory negligence – There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence -- In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Two-wheeler of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch of about 20-25 feet on the road after the collision with the offending truck – Offending truck must have been travelling at a fairly high speed and that its driver did not have sufficient control over his vehicle -- Driver of the offending truck should have been aware that he was driving the heavy motor vehicle and taken sufficient caution – No direct evidence that shows negligence on the part of the deceased that led to the accident -- Contributory negligence apportioned by the courts below on the part of the deceased is set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 25.09.2014

Motor cycle driver – Tractor driver -- It cannot be said that the appellant/Motor cyclist was rash and negligent just on the assumption made by the Tribunal that the collision occurred in the middle of the road since the two vehicles were approaching from opposite directions of the road – Further, there is no proof showing negligence on the part of the appellant – Negligence is wholly on the part of the driver of the offending tractor since he was driving the heavier vehicle -- 25% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Registration of FIR – Negligence of -- Non-examination of driver -- Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant became unconscious and thus, he could not get the FIR registered promptly – Claimants also proved on record the complaints, wherein he has represented to the higher authorities pleading his false implication in the FIR registered against him -- Offending motorcycle was carrying four passengers, i.e. the driver, two ladies and one child -- Therefore, it was difficult for the offending driver to control the vehicle at the time of the accident -- Lastly, the offending driver did not step into the witness box to rebut the factum of negligence attributed to him -- Under these circumstances, it remains unproved that the accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Three persons on motorcycle -- Motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling, was hit by the car from behind. It was clear that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car – At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law – Such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim -- Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Indicator for turn was not given -- Corporation bus was turning to its right side without showing the turn indicator to enter the bus depot -- Tribunal and the High Court have erred in the apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus – Accident was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle of the Corporation – Erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal & concurring with the same by the High Court on the question of contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Loss of Estate -- Loss of consortium – Funeral expenses – Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Deceased aged 49 -- Salary Income was Rs.7,320/- and was an income tax assessee at the relevant time – After converting petition from 163-A to 166 and having regard to the prospect of increase that was possible in government undertaking 30% increase but subject the same to 10% deduction for tax allowed with a multiplier of 13 – Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 1,00,000, Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- -- Loss to estate Rs.2500/-, Funeral expenses Rs.2,500/-- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Proof of Negligence – Accident indeed reflects a res ipsa loquitur situation when a person was not careful in his driving -- Fatal accidental fall and careful driving would be tautological -- Negligence of the motorcyclist as established and the case would be required to be examined under Section 166 of the Act itself, no matter that the petition is under Section 163-A of the Act -- Before conversion is made, all that has to be seen is whether any further evidence was necessary to consider a plea of negligence which might require to be proved u/s 166 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014

Appellants held entitled to cost of proceedings which is quantify at Rs.50,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2017

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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Evidential value -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Evidential value -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Immediately after the accident, on the same day, brother of the deceased has lodged DDR -- In the said DDR, it has been mentioned that the accident has taken place by chance when the deceased was crossing the road and nobody is at fault for this accident -- On the basis of this DDR, the inquest proceedings were carried out – Entire case of the appellants-claimants is based on the statement of PW-2 / “M” – No material on record to show that the claimants have moved any application to the police to take up the investigation of the case and to join “M” in the investigation -- PW-2/ “M” was familiar to the family members of the deceased and he also attended his 'Bhog' ceremony -- He had ample opportunity to disclose negligence of driver but he never came forward with any such version prior to make the statement in the Court – In these circumstances the presence of PW-2 / “M” at the time of occurrence is not established – Claimant failed to prove rash and negligence of Bus driver for causing accident – Claim petition rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2016

Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

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 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002 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.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2021

Bachelor/ Unmarried deceased -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Income of the deceased Rs.12,455/- p.m minus the applicable income tax -- No deduction is to be made from the salary qua other allowances etc. -- Multiplier of 16 and the eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50% -- Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for 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% p.a. awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Fixed deposit of compensation – Revisional power -- All the claimants are major by age -- 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 -- Petition allowed, order of 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Salaried deceased -- 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/- p.m. , of which annual income works out to Rs.7,58,184/- p.a. – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Interest @ 8.5% -- Deceased was 34 years 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2020

Children taking over business – Effect of -- Deceased was into the sale or trading business of water purifiers and was not 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Government employee Deceased – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

ITR -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Driver deceased -- Pleaded that the deceased was driver and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/- -- Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, while treating him as a manual worker – So, the claim petition was maintainable u/s 163-A of the Act – Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – Multiplier of ‘17’ should be applied, deduction of 50% is to be made towards his personal and living expenses – Funeral expenses assessed at Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate as Rs.15,000/- and compensation on account of loss of consortium, declined as the same is available only to the spouse – Compensation for future prospects assessed at Rs.9,600/- for 2 years – Total amount of compensation comes out to be Rs.2,43,600/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Notional income -- Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Proceedings for 22 years -- Compensation with 12% interest p.a. -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998 – He was evidently doing fairly well, by taking an increment of 10% per annum from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the deceased could be fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m., which can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. -- Income of the deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 = Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. -- 50% of the income of the deceased deducted towards personal expenses, since he was living in a foreign country – Future prospects @30% and multiplier of 15 given -- For loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000, Loss of Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000, Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 and Funeral Expenses, Rs. 15,000/- awarded – Total compensation to be paid comes to be Rs. 39,65,125/- -- After deducting for 50% contributory negligence amount payable comes to Rs.19,82,563/- -- Since dependents have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since past 22 years, interest @ 12% p.a. awarded from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Death of student -- Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Taking a clue from notification issued by the State of Haryana fixing minimum wage at the relevant time coupled with educational qualification of the deceased, income of deceased is assessed at Rs. 4800/- per month -- Claimants shall be entitle to addition in income for future prospects @ 40% -- Admissible multiplier and deduction for personal expenses is 18 and 50% respectively -- Loss of dependency is Rs. 7,25,760/- [4800 x12x18 + (40% thereof) – 50%)] – Expenses on funeral Rs.15,000/- and Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- given – Payable with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, to mother of the deceased, to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance Company – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Pillion rider – Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance Company – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Self-employed deceased aged 37 years -- Minimum wage of Rs. 8,220/- per month taken -- 40% loss of future prospects assessed – 1/4th deduction made towards personal expenses made (Four claimants) -- Multiplier of 15 applied -- Under 'conventional heads', Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium (including filial consortium), Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites assessed -- Total compensation payable is Rs. 16,23,580/- -- Said compensation would carry an interest of 6% per annum, running from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of realization thereof.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Third party Policy -- Pillion rider – Gratuitous passenger – Liability of Insurance Company – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

ITR/ Income Tax Return – Five Dependents -- As per income tax return, deceased was having total income of 45000 Canadian dollars per annum -- After deducting tax effective income comes to Canadian dollars 33360 per annum -- One third is deducted as personal expenses, balance comes to Canadian dollars 25020 -- As per ITR, deceased was little more than 46 years of age, Multiplier of 13 is to be applied -- Amount of compensation comes to Canadian dollars 325260 (25020x13) -- Family was to go back to Canada, therefore, claimants will be entitled to compensation in Canadian dollars and not in Indian rupees, as per income of deceased in Canada.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Six months old son deceased -- Loss of only son, parents had to suffer mental shock -- Deceased, as per Indian customs, was to look after his parents in their old age -- In such circumstances, Rs. 5,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for loss of love and affection, future support granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Father’s right -- 73 years old Father – Dependency of -- Deceased was survived by widow, two minor children and old father aged 73 years -- The widow-PW-1 specifically stated in her deposition that age of her father-in-law is 73 years -- Considering the age of father, it cannot be held that father was not dependent upon the earnings of his son – 1/4th deduction made for self-expenses upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Multiplier -- Deceased was 45 years 02 months and 05 days – He is to be considered as 45 years and not 46 years -- As the deceased was 45 years and not completed the 46, multiplier of '14' is applied.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Interest @ 9% -- Deceased was 23 years of age and his parents were in the age group of 40 to 45 years – Multiplier of 18 applied, compensation worked out to Rs.6,80,400/- -- Rate of interest modified to 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunal and High Court.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Daily wages -- Deceased 17 years old – Income as per daily wages Rs.5,000/- taken – 40% future prospects – Deduction ½ -- Dependency assessed at Rs.3500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/- -- Conventional heads Rs.30,000/- -- Medical expenses Rs.2,51,000/- -- Total compensation comes to Rs.10,37,000/- -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,400/- will carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.02.2018

Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m sustained -- Multiplier should be 17 -- Addition of 40% towards future prospects would also be warranted -- Since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs 8,56,800/- -- Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses also awarded -- Compensation stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/- -- Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Conventional heads – Loss of Estate -- Loss of consortium – Funeral expenses – Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Deduction for personal and living expenses -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 = (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247, “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. -- 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. -- 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Future prospects – Self-employed – In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Loss of consortium – Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Loss of Estate -- Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Multiplicand/Multiplier -- Selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 = (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247 read with paragraph 42 of that judgment., “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” -- The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Multiplier/ Multiplicand -- Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case – Selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 = (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247 read with paragraph 42 of that judgment., “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” -- The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Permanent job -- Future prospects – While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made -- Addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years -- In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15% -- Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Self-employed – Future prospects – In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Self-employed – Job on fixed salary -- Future prospects – In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Love and affection -- Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of love and affection to the claimants -- There are seven claimants in total, out of which loss of consortium has already been awarded to widow, therefore, remaining claimants are held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each (total Rs.6,00,000/-) towards loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Employee in the Government Press -- Age of the deceased was 45 years and he was an employee in the Government Press, 30% increase in his income made by the Tribunal cannot be reduced -- Multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side -- Deceased was survived by a widow, three minor children and his mother -- Five family members of the deceased are claimants -- Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of his income as personal expenses -- Grant of rate of interest of 7.5% cannot be held to be excessive.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Delay in preferring revision – Interest thereupon -- Employer of deceased appeared before the MACT and deposed that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month -- Deceased age 40 years -- 2/3 dependency -- By applying multiplier of 15, the compensation is worked out at Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs for loss of consortium -- Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum awarded from the date of filing claim before MACT, however a period of two years shall be excluded which is to be attributed to the appellants in preferring the revision application before the High Court -- Appellants shall also be entitled to cost of these proceedings which is quantify at Rs.50,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2017

Bachelor/ Unmarried deceased – Deduction of – Deceased was unmarried and aged about 23 years at the time of his demise – 50% deducted from his income towards personal and living expenses – 50% on account of future prospects cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of any matter/reference before the Hon'ble Supreme Court qua compensation on account of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Welder employee -- Deceased was employed as a Welder -- Simply because minimum wage rate prevalent at the time of accident in the State of Punjab was to the tune of Rs.4000/-, does not mean that deceased was not earning more than the minimum wage rate -- From the evidence on record it is established that deceased was working as a Welder on a monthly salary of Rs.6500/- per month – Income assessed to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal, requires no interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Father’s dependency -- Father of the deceased cannot be considered to be dependent upon the income of the deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Skilled labour -- Accident dated 26.8.2013 – Deceased was aged 32 years -- Income of the deceased taken to be Rs.8000/- p.m. of skilled worker – After 50% appreciation for future prospects it comes to Rs. 12,000/- p.m. – Deduction of 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses income comes to Rs. 8,000/- -- After applying multiplier of 16 amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,36,000/- (96,000 x 16) -- Widow of deceased shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium -- Minor son shall also be entitled of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance -- Mother shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection of her son -- Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses -- Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.18,61,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Income of the deceased Rs.30,000/- p.m. -- Deceased was 42/43 years when she died in the accident, there had to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects – Income of the deceased comes within the range of taxable income -- Deducting Rs.25,800/- as 10% income tax, the amount comes to Rs.4,42,200/- -- Dependents being two, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the amount comes to Rs.2,94,800/- -- After applying multiplier of '14' compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency is Rs.41,27,000/- -- Funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- and a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

ITR -- Decease 47 years at the time of accident – Income as per ITR is Rs.4,80,000/- per annum – Adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.6,24,000/- -- Deducting Rs.44,800/- towards income tax, according to the slab given in the relevant assessment year, the amount comes to Rs.5,79,200/- -- There being two dependents namely deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses made – After deducting 1/3rd, the amount comes to Rs.3,86,130/- -- Multiplier of '13' applied is appropriate and the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency comes to Rs.50,19,700/- -- In addition for funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Future prospects -- Deceased aged 21 years – Income assessed at Rs.5,000/- -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of 50% increase towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Rajesh’s case (2013) 9 SCC 54 -- Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency’, would come to Rs.5,000/- + 50% X 12 X ½ X 18 = Rs.8,10,000/- -- Furthermore, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is awarded to the appellant-mother of the deceased, on account of loss of love and affection, if she is alive -- Disbursement of amount of compensation towards 'future prospects' shall be subject to furnishing requisite indemnity bonds by the claimants as the question of admissibility of future prospects to daily wagers/self-employed persons is pending adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.16735 of 2014.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.05.2016

Discharge against medical advice – Death of – Liability of Insurance Company -- A decision to get discharged even against medical advice at the terminal stage of life shall not be likened to an invitation to be assisted suicide -- It is embracing dignity in death – It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment -- A right not to get treated is just as well a significant right to a patient as a right to be treated -- A dilemma that a court might face, when approached whether the patient shall be allowed to die by withdrawal of life support is quite different from a patient expressing desire not to be treated -- In the former, it is broaching issue of passive euthanasia and in the latter, it is an issue of patient autonomy -- Former grapples with legal uncertainty and still debatable, however in the latter, there is no ambiguity; it is beyond debate – Ultimate decision making the insurer liable is therefore inevitable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2016

Statement of widow that her husband was earning Rs.3200/- p.m. after deducting his personal expenditure does not mean that income of deceased was not upto Rs.40,000/- -- Income of the deceased assessed as Rs.3200/- per month i.e. Rs.38,400/- per annum -- Deceased being 37 years old when he died in the accident, the multiplier of '16' will be the appropriate multiplier as per the Second Schedule of the Act of 1988 -- Applying the multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.6,14,400/- -- 1/3rd is to be deducted towards the expenses which the victim would have incurred in maintaining himself -- After deduction, the amount comes to Rs.4,09,600/- -- Amount of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- on account of loss of estate is allowed to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2016

Motor mechanic deceased -- Accident occurred in 2011 – Deceased was 23 years old and was motor mechanic -- No cogent and convincing evidence to establish the profession and income of the deceased – Income of the deceased taken to be Rs.4500/- p.m. -- Future prospects shall be admissible to the self-employed persons -- 50% of his income shall be added towards the future prospects -- Three dependents, so 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses -- Multiplier of 18 shall be applicable – Total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,72,000/- -- Appellant-claimant widow shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium -- Minor son and the widowed mother of the deceased shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-, each, towards loss of love and affection -- Claimants shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and last rite expenses -- Total compensation comes to be Rs.12,97,000/-

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Minimum income -- Deceased had set up a milk chilling center and had been operating the same -- As per the chart circulated by the Labour Department, Punjab, the minimum income for the highly skilled upper labourer comes to Rs.3,304/- -- Ends of justice would be adequately met, in case, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month – Deceased was 46 years at the time of death an addition of 30% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,000/- + 30% X 12 X 13 X 2/3 = Rs.5,40,800/- -- Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the son of the deceased for loss of love, care and guidance and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- and another amount of Rs.95,000/- is granted to the wife of deceased for loss of consortium.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

No proof of income -- Date of accident 4.2.2009 -- Deceased aged 32 years – In the absence of income proof income taken as Rs.3500/- and making provision for future increase, the average income is taken as Rs. 4550/- -- Dependants are widow, daughter and son, deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses applied -- Multiplier of 16 given – Rs. 1 lac awarded for loss of consortium, Rs. 1 lac for love and affection – Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses also awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Agriculturist deceased -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased was an agriculturist and was managing his agricultural land himself, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month -- Since the age of the deceased was 43 years, there has to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects -- Deduction of 1/4th applied – Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to appellants for loss of love and affection -- A further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to widow for loss of consortium – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Household lady -- Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased-lady was a household lady aged about 45 years – Services rendered by a housewife cannot be less valued than what a daily wager can earn -- Considering the relevant facts the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1500/- per month -- Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate multiplier -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Income of deceased assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month – Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased aged 48/50 years -- An addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects allowed – After deduction of 1/4th multiplier of '13' would be the appropriate multiplier – Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to appellants for loss of love and affection -- A further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to widow for loss of consortium -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Minimum wages -- Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4200/- per month is inadequate being less than the minimum wages -- At the age of the deceased the amount fixed at minimum wage at least deserves to be granted -- Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4400/- per month -- Deceased Vikram was 19 years of age at the time of his death -- Keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh’s 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 170 (SC), an addition of 50% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects -- Multiplier of 18 deserves to be applied – Amount of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' would come to Rs.4400/- + 50% X 12 X 18 X 1/2 = Rs.7,12,800/- -- Following the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar’s case (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Age on driving license -- As per driving licence of the deceased, he was more than 37 years of age at the time of his death -- Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15, which is appropriate -- Deceased being 37 years of age at the time of accident, an addition of 50% to his actual income computing future prospects is to be allowed -- A sum of Rs.one lac is allowed to the minor children for loss of love, care and guidance to the children -- In addition to the same Rs. 1 lac towards loss of consortium to the wife, Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection to the mother -- Amount awarded on account of last rites expenses is also enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Income of the deceased taken at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month -- Deceased was 29 year old as per the postmortem report – 50% of the income added as future prospects -- Total income comes to Rs.90,000/- per annum -- 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, remainder comes to Rs.60,000/- -- Multiplier of 17 should have been applicable -- Loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,20,000/- -- Rs.71,958/- granted towards medical expenses on the basis of the bills – Claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses -- Widow shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium -- Minor daughters will be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care, guidance, love and affection -- Claimants shall also be entitled to sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss to estate -- Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,36,958/- -- Claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realization @ 7.5% per annum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Army man deceased was less than 27 years -- 50% future prospects added towards his income -- 10% has to be deducted towards income tax -- 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses – Multiplier of 17 shall be applicable -- Widow of deceased shall be further entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium -- Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses -- Minor son of the deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance – Mother of the deceased shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection -- Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.42,95,840/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

Bachelor deceased – Presumed to be 18 year old at the time of death -- Monthly income of deceased was assessed as Rs.3000/- per month -- 50% added as future prospects [Rs.3000/- + Rs.1500/-] Rs. 4500/- per month -- 50% deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased [Rs.4500/-] - [Rs.2250/-]=Rs.2250/- per month -- Compensation after multiplier of 16 was applied [Rs.2250/-x12x16] Rs.4,32,000/- -- For loss of love and affection awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- for each parent) -- Funeral expenses awarded as Rs.25,000/- -- Total compensation awarded is Rs.5,57,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.5,57,000/-) - (Rs.2,90,000/-) = Rs.2,67,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

Engineering student – Deceased was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering and was a brilliant student – Salary of deceased assessed as Rs.10000/- p.m. -- 50% added as future prospects amounts to Rs.10000+Rs.5000=Rs.15000/- p.m. – ½ (Rs.15000-Rs.7500=Rs.7500 p.m.) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased -- Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied i.e. Rs.7500 X 12 X 18= Rs.16,20,000/- -- Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection to parents -- Rs.25,000/- as Funeral charges -- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 17,45,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.17,45,000-Rs.4,21,000=Rs.13,24,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Bachelor deceased – Future prospects – Salary of deceased assessed as Rs.4000 p.m. -- Claimant held entitled for 50% increase in income of deceased towards future prospects (Rs.4000+ Rs.2000)= (Rs.6000 per month) -- ½ deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (Rs.6000-Rs.3000)= Rs.3000 per month -- Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied (Rs.3000X12X18)= Rs.648000 – For loss of love and affection and estate Rs.100000 and funeral expenses Rs.25000 awarded – Total compensation amounted Rs.773000 -- Enhanced compensation will carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing till realisation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Deceased lady was non-working -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident -- Her notional income was taken as that of a home maker as Rs.5000/- -- After deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased the annual income came to be Rs.30,000/--- Age of the deceased was 60 years -- After applying the multiplier of 9, the compensation came to Rs.2,70,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded for loss of love and affection for the claimants and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses of the deceased -- The total compensation came to Rs.3,95,000/- -- Award held to be rightly passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Salary of the deceased came to Rs.14,40,000/- and after income tax the annual salary comes to Rs.11,99,000/- -- As the deceased was 52 years old, 15% addition in income was given towards future prospects and hence the salary per annum came to Rs.13,78,850/- -- After deducting 1/4th the dependency of the claimants came to Rs.10,34,138/- which was rounded of to Rs.10,34,000/- -- Multiplier of 11 is applied -- Compensation came to Rs. 1,13,74,000/- -- A sum of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded on account of loss of consortium to widow, Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards love and affection to children and an amount of Rs.25,000 was awarded for funeral expenses of the deceased. Hence the claimants were found entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,15,99,000/- by the Tribunal – Award held to be rightly passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Income of deceased in the year 1997 taken as Rs.3000/- per month -- 1/3rd amount has to be deducted in respect of personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.2000/- per month – By applying the multiplier of 5, the amount comes to Rs.1,20,000/- -- Another sum of Rs.10,000/- stands allowed in respect of last rites and transportation of dead body -- Rs.20,000/- stands allowed to widow in respect of consortium -- Widow is held entitle to claim Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation -- Claimant shall be further held entitle to claim interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its payment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2015

Bachelor deceased – Deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses is not to be disturbed -- Multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17 – By taking monthly income as Rs.12,000 with future prospects of 50% increase total compensation will be assessed as : (Rs.12,000 + Rs.6000) x 50% x 17 = Rs.18,36,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 15.05.2015

Carpenter deceased -- Evidence shows deceased was a Carpenter by profession -- Tribunal has not held that he was not a Carpenter -- Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- -- Even if the income of the deceased is to be taken as a labourer, even then his income has been assessed on lower side -- Income of the deceased assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month – In the age group of 46 to 50 years, the multiplier of thirteen should be applied -- Tribunal has correctly made deduction of 1/3rd as there are three claimants -- After deducting 1/3rd , the monthly income comes to Rs.3,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 13 years, the compensation comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,68,000/- -- For loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.1 Lac is awarded -- Claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses -- Similarly, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.1 Lac in total for love and affection -- Total compensation comes to Rs.6,93,000/- alongwith @6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2015

House-wife -- Accident of 1990 – Income of deceased as House-wife taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m. -- Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses contribution of the deceased and the family is calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month -- Deceased was aged about 22 years, proper multiplier to be adopted is 18 -- Dependency is calculated at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2000 x 12 x 18) -- Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor children -- Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the High Court is maintained -- Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- alongwith 9% interest p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Housewife -- Deceased was a housewife and a home maker – It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother -- Services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed -- Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money -- A house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency -- Taking deceased as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Calculation of Dependency of deceased – Five members in the family of the deceased besides himself but deduction was made only to the extent of 1/3rd for personal living expenses – Held, deduction is required to be made to the extent of 1/4th.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Conventional heads -- Accident in the year 2000 – For loss of consortium to the widow Rs.1,00,000/-, for consortium and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- and for loss of love and affection to the minor children an amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Determination of Age of deceased – Widow of deceased stated that she was married to the deceased when she was 18 years old and her marriage lasted with him for about 12 years – Deceased was about 1-1/2 years older to her – In such event, the age of the deceased should have been more than 30 years – This part is not disputed by the other side – It is held that the age was between 31 and 35 years and in view of the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Interest @ 9% -- Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- 50% added under the head of future prospects to the annual income – Deducting 10% tax net annual income comes to Rs.2,45,511/- -- Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674 X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/- -- Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs.25,000/- granted – For love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- awarded -- Courts below have erred in not granting the interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. – Total compensation payable to the appellants will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Interest @ 9% -- Deceased were 33 years old – Monthly income assessed at Rs.12,000/- -- Annual income of both the deceased would be Rs.1,44,000/- -- Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards their personal expenses, in order to determine the loss of dependency and keeping in view the age of the minor children, their widowed wives and the aged parents -- Balance amount comes to Rs.1,08,000/- -- Multiplier of 16 awarded -- Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the children awarded towards loss of love and affection of the deceased father -- Parents of the deceased son are to be awarded Rs.50,000/- each for the loss of love and affection – Rs.25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of both the deceased -- Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation -- Appellants are held to be entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Bachelor deceased boy was aged 21 years, a Constable with Punjab Police – Claim petition by parents and the minor sister – Salary Rs.2,300/- p.m., addition of 50% had to be made towards future prospects and the total income would come to Rs.3450/- -- Deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made -- Annual contribution would come to Rs.20,700/- and applying the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the parents, the compensation would come to Rs.2,27,700/- -- A sum of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added as loss of estate; raising the total to be Rs.2,42,700/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

No evidence to show that the deceased had an income of Rs.20,000/- per month – Considering him labourer, the minimum wages in Punjab in 2011 were Rs.4,108/- per month – Since, the deceased was under 40 years of age, 50% increase has to be allowed towards future prospects – Multiplier applicable would be 16 – Making an addition of 50%, the total income available for the family would be Rs.6,162/- -- After making 1/4th deduction, the amount available would be Rs.4,622/- per month -- Compensation would work to Rs.8,87,424/- -- Rs.15,000/- more should be added as funeral expenses – A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is added on account of loss of love and affection for the children, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is added on account of loss of consortium; making the total to be Rs.11,02,424/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Deceased Driver holding licence of H.M.V. – Minimum wages taken at Rs. 9,000/- -- Deceased was 25 years of age and was a matriculate, working as a driver with a valid license for driving heavy motor vehicles -- A driver in Himachal Pradesh on an average earns Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per Minimum Wages Act -- Courts below have failed to take judicial notice of the same and the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job -- Gross monthly income of the deceased taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m., i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- p.a. -- On deduction of 20% towards income tax, the net income comes to Rs.86,400/- p.a. -- Further, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.10,36,800/- -- Further Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- to each minor child of the deceased towards loss of love and affection awarded -- Wife also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate – Total compensation is payable alongwith 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2014

Medical Student – Future income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- Deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree -- Courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which is too less for a medical graduate these days -- Deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights -- Future income of the deceased assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m. – After deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses multiplier of 13 given -- Total loss of dependency assessed at Rs.26,00,000/- -- For loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- awarded -- Total compensation of Rs.27,25,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 25.09.2014

Age of deceased 53 years -- Future prospects -- 30% of actual salary for future prospects of the deceased cannot be taken for the purpose of awarding compensation under loss of dependency in favour of the appellants.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

ITR -- Deceased was 53 year old -- Gross salary was Rs. 26,000/- -- After deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month – Annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/- -- Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards his personal expenses, the balance amount comes to Rs.2,10,600/- -- Loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 11, comes to Rs.23,16,600/- (Rs.2,10,600/- X 11) -- Appellants are also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of estate.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Negligence of Driver – Proof of -- Minimal requirement is that the death or injury is by the use of a motor vehicle – Death that as resulted is a typical illustration of a res ipsa loquitur situation and no further proof for negligence is necessary than merely statement of fact of death or injury -- This is not a claim by the driver or owner of the vehicle, which alone would be barred -- The claim is by a passenger in a case where there is a comprehensive insurance cover for risk to a passenger -- Owner of the vehicle held to be liable the same way as the driver is and this shall be channelled to the liability of the insurer as a person who is bound to indemnify the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Proof of Negligence – An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Salaried deceased aged 49 -- Salary Income was Rs.7,320/- and was an income tax assessee at the relevant time – After converting petition from 163-A to 166 and having regard to the prospect of increase that was possible in government undertaking 30% increase but subject the same to 10% deduction for tax allowed with a multiplier of 13 – Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 1,00,000, Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- -- Loss to estate Rs.2500/-, Funeral expenses Rs.2,500/-- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

No evidence of income -- Accident pertains to the year 1989, therefore, the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side -- Deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death – Multiplier ought to be 17 -- Claimants being six in number, the deduction applied on account of personal expenses is also decreased from 1/3 to 1/4 – Deceased being self-employed a notional addition of 50% on account of future prospects is ordered – Compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,000/- + 50% X 12 X ¾ X 17 = Rs.6,88,500/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium', payable to the wife only, whereas, Rs.10,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses -- Another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children, in equal shares.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2014

Bachelor deceased -- Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family -- However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Fixed salary – Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death -- A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Married deceased -- Deduction for personal and living expenses – Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be -- one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, -- one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and -- one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Multiplier – Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Held, multiplier to be used should be: -- M-17 for 26 to 30 years, -- M-16 for 31 to 35 years, -- M-15 for 36 to 40 years, -- M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and -- M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, -- M-11 for 51 to 55 years, -- M-9 for 56 to 60 years, -- M-7 for 61 to 65 years and -- M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Permanent job -- As a rule of thumb an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years [where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’] -- Addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. -- There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. -- Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Self-employed -- Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death -- A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Married deceased -- Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3 -- one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and -- one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Assessment of income – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Tribunal applied 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who has left behind four dependents -- No error to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Deduction of 1/4th put on account of the six dependents – Award of the MACT not seem to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity which would warrant interference – Appeal dismissed in limine.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- 50% of the income of the deceased deducted towards personal expenses, since he was living in a foreign country.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – Deduction of 50% is to be made towards his personal and living expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependents – Deduction towards his personal expenses made by 1/4th

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Death of student -- Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Deduction for personal expenses 50%.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Admissible multiplier and deduction for personal expenses is 18 and 50% respectively.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased, self-employed person aged 37 years -- 1/4th deduction made towards personal expenses made (Four claimants).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Deceased was survived by widow, two minor children and old father aged 73 years -- The widow-PW-1 specifically stated in her deposition that age of her father-in-law is 73 years -- Considering the age of father, it cannot be held that father was not dependent upon the earnings of his son – 1/4th deduction made for self-expenses upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Deceased having wife, two minor children, aged father – Dependency assessed as 60% after deducting 40% for personal expenses.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Bachelor deceased 29 years old, in 2006 -- Deduction of 50 per cent towards personal expenses (the deceased being a bachelor).

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Claimants are wife, two sons and two daughters -- ¼ deduction for personal expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force -- Claimants are wife, two sons and two daughters -- ¼ deduction for personal expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Number of dependents in are 5 -- Deduction of 1/4th only has to be applied and not 1/3rd on account of personal expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Since the number of dependents in the present case is 5 therefore, the deduction of 1/4th only has to be applied and not 1/3rd on account of personal expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 = (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247, “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. -- 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. -- 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. -- 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. -- 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Age of the deceased was 45 years -- Deceased was survived by a widow, three minor children and his mother -- Five family members of the deceased are claimants -- Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of his income as personal expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Unmarried deceased aged about 23 years at the time of his demise – 50% deducted from his income towards personal and living expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Decease 47 years at the time of accident – There being two dependents namely deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses made.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Deceased was 42/43 years when she died in the accident, there had to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects – Dependents being two, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Two dependents -- Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses made.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Deceased was 23 years old and was motor mechanic -- Three dependents, so 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Three dependents -- Deceased was 23 years old and was motor mechanic -- Three dependents, so 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of accident -- Deceased was having three dependents i.e. his widow and two minor children -- So, 1/3rd of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.04.2016

Deceased aged 32 years – Dependants are widow, daughter and son, deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses applied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Deceased aged 44 years was working as Home Guard -- There were four dependents on the income of the deceased his wife, son and two daughters, 1/4th of the income was rightly deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Four dependents on the income of the deceased his wife, son and two daughters, 1/4th of the income was rightly deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Widow, daughter and son dependents -- Deceased aged 32 years –Deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses applied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Deceased was Bachelor -- Deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses is not to be disturbed.

(SC) Decided on: 15.05.2015

House-wife -- Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses contribution of the deceased and the family is calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Five members in the family of the deceased besides himself but deduction was made only to the extent of 1/3rd for personal living expenses – Held, deduction is required to be made to the extent of 1/4th.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased were 33 years old – Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards their personal expenses, in order to determine the loss of dependency and keeping in view the age of the minor children, their widowed wives and the aged parents.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Parent’s dependency -- Deceased was 27 years of age -- Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased was unmarried boy aged 21 years, a Constable with Punjab Police – Claim petition by parents and the minor sister – Deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Medical Student – Deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree -- After deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses multiplier of 13 given.

(SC) Decided on: 25.09.2014

Deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death – Claimants being six in number, the deduction applied on account of personal expenses is also decreased from 1/3 to 1/4.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2014

Bachelor deceased -- Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family -- However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Bachelor deceased -- Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

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 -- Tribunal wrongly deducted amount of Rs.26,67,168/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.35,56,069/- payable to the appellants/claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Insurance claim – Pensionary benefits -- Other pecuniary benefits outcome or result of death – Law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased -- Claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident -- Advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Life Insurance premium -- Deceased paid premium on life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death -- Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc. -- Tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Pension and Gratuity -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Deduction is not permissible -- Deceased paid premium on life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death -- Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc. -- Tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Future prospects -- Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

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 -- Tribunal wrongly deducted amount of Rs.26,67,168/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.35,56,069/- payable to the appellants/claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – Deduction is not permissible -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Pension and Gratuity -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Pensionary benefits -- Other pecuniary benefits outcome or result of death – Law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased -- Claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident -- Advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Transfer of vehicle by hire/lease/sale -- Insurer’s liability -- Certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer -- Even if there is a transfer of the vehicle by sale, the insurer cannot escape the liability as there is deemed transfer of the certificate of insurance -- Hire purchase agreement, an agreement for lease or an agreement for hypothecation are covered under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- A person in possession is considered to be an owner of the vehicle under such agreements -- Held, an agreement for lease on hire cannot be said to be contract envisaged for exclusion under contractual liability in second proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Injury case -- Claim of the appellant has been pending for several years before the courts, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards costs incurred during pendency of the appeal.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Effect of -- Claim petition in Motor Vehicle Accident case – Delay of four days in registering the FIR is of no consequence -- Only on this ground, it cannot be held that the claimants have not proved the rash and negligent driving of driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle case -- Interest thereupon -- Employer of deceased appeared before the MACT and deposed that deceased was getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month -- Deceased age 40 years -- 2/3 dependency -- By applying multiplier of 15, the compensation is worked out at Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs for loss of consortium -- Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum awarded from the date of filing claim before MACT, however a period of two years shall be excluded which is to be attributed to the appellants in preferring the revision application before the High Court -- Appellants shall also be entitled to cost of these proceedings which is quantify at Rs.50,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2017

Interest on delayed period -- Deceased was serving in army and getting salary of Rs.9056/- p.m. taken as to be Rs.9000/- -- Deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of accident -- So, 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be added towards the future prospects – Deceased was having three dependents i.e. his widow and two minor children -- So, 1/3rd of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses -- Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 15 shall be applicable – Wife also held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium -- Minor children of the deceased, shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care and guidance -- Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and transportation charges -- Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.18,45,000/- -- Claimant will not be entitle to interest for delay period of 1736 days in preferring the present appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.04.2016

Delay of 28 years – A claim raised before the M.A.C.T., can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim -- It is not as if, it can be open to all and sundry, to approach a the Tribunal, to raise a claim for compensation, at any juncture, after the accident had taken place -- Individual concerned, must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time -- Question of reasonability would naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case -- Delay of 28 years, even without reference to any other fact, cannot be considered as a prima facie reasonable period -- Only justification indicated for initiating proceedings after a lapse of 28 years, that they are poor person and they have no knowledge about the Law and they has not been paid the single pie towards any compensation – Explanation tendered, cannot be accepted -- Instant case, was stale, and ought to have been treated as a dead claim.

(SC) Decided on: 09.02.2017

Rash and negligence driving – Proof of -- Driver appeared into witness box and stated that no accident took place but driver and owner have not led any evidence that they have filed any complaint or representation to the higher officers for their false implication -- There is also nothing that any revision has been filed against the charges -- Otherwise also, causing the death while reversing the vehicle without taking any precautions itself shows rash and negligent driving.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Discharge against medical advice – Death of – Liability of Insurance Company -- A decision to get discharged even against medical advice at the terminal stage of life shall not be likened to an invitation to be assisted suicide -- It is embracing dignity in death – It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment -- A right not to get treated is just as well a significant right to a patient as a right to be treated -- A dilemma that a court might face, when approached whether the patient shall be allowed to die by withdrawal of life support is quite different from a patient expressing desire not to be treated -- In the former, it is broaching issue of passive euthanasia and in the latter, it is an issue of patient autonomy -- Former grapples with legal uncertainty and still debatable, however in the latter, there is no ambiguity; it is beyond debate – Ultimate decision making the insurer liable is therefore inevitable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2016

Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased -- Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was running business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

73 years old Father – Deceased was survived by widow, two minor children and old father aged 73 years -- The widow-PW-1 specifically stated in her deposition that age of her father-in-law is 73 years -- Considering the age of father, it cannot be held that father was not dependent upon the earnings of his son – 1/4th deduction made for self-expenses upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Father of the deceased cannot be considered to be dependent upon the income of the deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Compensation in Motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him -- Deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister -- Deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival -- Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

No evidence on the record to controvert the statement to the effect that all three appellants-claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased -- No reasoning given by the Tribunal except that they were married and had children – Held, in the absence of any evidence having been led by the respondents to the contrary, all three appellants were dependent on the deceased and hence, would be entitled to an equal amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2020

Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Mere fact that the vehicle number is not mentioned in the FIR, is of no consequence -- It was not expected that one would mention the vehicle number and name of the driver in the FIR.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Widow of deceased stated that she was married to the deceased when she was 18 years old and her marriage lasted with him for about 12 years – Deceased was about 1-1/2 years older to her – In such event, the age of the deceased should have been more than 30 years – This part is not disputed by the other side – It is held that the age was between 31 and 35 years and in view of the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 would be applicable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Contributory negligence – Composite negligence -- There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence -- In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Expert evidence -- Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Medical Bill – Requirement of – Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 -- Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards disability is sufficient -- As regards medical expenses, no bill has been placed on record -- Yet considering the fact that she has got 25% disability to the whole body, it cannot be said no expense on medical bills, transportation and special diet would have been incurred -- Insurance Company is not in a position to deny this but states that in the absence of any evidence it would not be appropriate for the Court to award any amount -- Keeping in view the nature of injuries, Rs.30,000/- granted for medical expenses, for transportation and for special diet.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Permanent disability – Future income – Pain and suffering -- Assessment of -- Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Compensation in motor vehicle accident claim case -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- After considering 50% enhancement for future prospects, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated at (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1750/-) x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/- -- Rs. 73,500 for loss of earning (Rs. 3,500/- X 21 months) since the appellant was unable to work for 21 months from the date of the accident till the filing of the claim petition -- Rs.1,50,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident -- Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper – Rs. 500/- for damages to clothing, Rs. 22,400/- for expense for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander allowed – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Death of – Liability of Insurance Company -- A decision to get discharged even against medical advice at the terminal stage of life shall not be likened to an invitation to be assisted suicide -- It is embracing dignity in death – It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment -- A right not to get treated is just as well a significant right to a patient as a right to be treated -- A dilemma that a court might face, when approached whether the patient shall be allowed to die by withdrawal of life support is quite different from a patient expressing desire not to be treated -- In the former, it is broaching issue of passive euthanasia and in the latter, it is an issue of patient autonomy -- Former grapples with legal uncertainty and still debatable, however in the latter, there is no ambiguity; it is beyond debate – Ultimate decision making the insurer liable is therefore inevitable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2016

Petition u/s 166 not barred -- If there is no legal ground for consideration of the case under Section 163-A, it cannot bar a consideration under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2014

Third party – Father-son are distinct legal entities – Any two individuals are separate and distinct legal entities with independent rights and liabilities -- If due to negligence in driving a vehicle, father causes the death of his own son, the dependents of such deceased son can very well raise a claim against the negligent father of such deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Claim in motor vehicle accident case – Cause of death -- Accident took place on 21.5.2010 and injured got admitted in hospital on 21.6.2010 – Doctor stated that it was a known case of chronic heart disease and alcoholic liver disease and deceased died a natural death and has no relation with the alleged accidental injuries – Held, courts are no experts for determining cause of death -- If court make inference about the cause of death as due to an accident, it invariably look to the fact of accident and the proximate cause for the death and wherever postmortem is done, the report of the Doctor regarding the cause of death – It will be wholly wrong for a Tribunal to discard Doctor's evidence and enter a pure realm of conjecture to determine cause for death – Award passed in favour of claimant is result of misplaced sympathy – Award is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Driver’s 55% permanent disability – Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Disability Certificate -- 85% permanent disability -- Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25%.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Award of Tribunal – Death of cleaner of truck no. HR-38P-8270 and in award, the Tribunal had held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending truck No. HR-73-0804 – No appeal by insurance company -- That judgment operates as estoppel against the Insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Deceased Driver holding licence of H.M.V. – Minimum wages taken at Rs. 9,000/- -- Deceased was 25 years of age and was a matriculate, working as a driver with a valid license for driving heavy motor vehicles -- A driver in Himachal Pradesh on an average earns Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per Minimum Wages Act -- Courts below have failed to take judicial notice of the same and the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job -- Gross monthly income of the deceased taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m., i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- p.a. -- On deduction of 20% towards income tax, the net income comes to Rs.86,400/- p.a. -- Further, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.10,36,800/- -- Further Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- to each minor child of the deceased towards loss of love and affection awarded -- Wife also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate – Total compensation is payable alongwith 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2014

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Compensation in motor vehicle accident claim case -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- After considering 50% enhancement for future prospects, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated at (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1750/-) x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/- -- Rs. 73,500 for loss of earning (Rs. 3,500/- X 21 months) since the appellant was unable to work for 21 months from the date of the accident till the filing of the claim petition -- Rs.1,50,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident -- Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper – Rs. 500/- for damages to clothing, Rs. 22,400/- for expense for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander allowed – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

55% disability of driver – Not able to work as driver – Future loss of income – Assessment of -- Monthly income Rs.4500/- -- Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again -- Contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability -- Applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.’s case (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Non mentioning of in FIR – Details of vehicle/ Driver missing in FIR – Mere fact that the vehicle number is not mentioned in the FIR, is of no consequence -- It was not expected that one would mention the vehicle number and name of the driver in the FIR.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Expiry of driving license -- 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 -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Driving license to minor -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of M.V. Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Driving licence from Nagaland -- Driver of offending vehicle resident of Amritsar – Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – No witness from Licensing authority examined – Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Held, that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Validity of license -- Onus to prove – Onus to prove that the driving licence was not valid on the day of accident or there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is on the insurer.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Non-pleadings the name of driver in written statement – Effect of -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Onus of proof -- Onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Duty of owner – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

Onus of proof -- When the license was proved by driver, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving -- Once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage -- Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence -- Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident.

(SC) Decided on: 13.07.2016

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Effect of -- Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.9.2011 – In view of Proviso to Section 14 of M.V. Act, 1988 , the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Renewal of fake licence -- Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Transport vehicle – Requirement of endorsement on Licence -- Whether for the drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle – In view of conflicting view : Matter referred to larger Bench to answer following questions: 1 What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in section 2(21) of the MV Act ? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it? 2 Whether ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘omnibus’ the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor-car or tractor or a road roller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor-car or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.? 3 What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of expression ‘transport vehicle’ under section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4 What is the effect of amendment of the Form 4 as to operation of the provisions contained in section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “Light Motor Vehicle” has been changed ?

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2016

Validity of license -- Driver of offending vehicle resident of Amritsar – Submission by insurance company that since driver belongs to Amritsar, he was not competent to submit an application before an authority in Nagaland for issuance of licence -- Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – No witness from Licensing authority examined – Effect of -- Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Invalid driving license – Breach of policy – Onus of proof – Recovery right -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Award of Tribunal – First Appeal – An appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence -- High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how, and if not, why? -- As a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute -- Impugned judgment also does not, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons -- Impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable – Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

(P&H HC) Decided on 10.02.2004

Driving License of Driver – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

License of Driver – Owner/RW3 made a categoric statement that he had seen the driving licence of driver before he was appointed – He has stated that 90 people were working for him and regular accounts were maintained by them and they had also taken the driving test of the driver before his engagement – Held, owner is not required to make specific inquiries regarding the genuineness of licence -- Owner was entitled to full indemnity. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation’s case 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2017

Fake driving licence – L.M.V. licence – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Insurance of vehicle -- An owner of a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally obligated to get the vehicle insured -- Rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Invalid driving license – Recovery right to Insurance company -- Owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence – Driver’s license was proved to be invalid -- Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Married daughter – Right of -- Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force -- After deduction of Income Tax, monthly income comes to Rs.27,000/- p.m. – Claimants are wife, two sons and two daughters -- Future prospects 15% given – ¼ deduction for personal expenses – After applying multiplier of 9, amount comes to Rs.25,15,050/- -- After adding, loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium, Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- total amount of compensation comes to be Rs.25,85,050/- -- Earning son and married daughter of the deceased, both of them being not dependent upon the deceased, are not entitled to any amount from the enhanced amount of compensation -- Enhancement shall fetch interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deduction of – Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Acquittal or conviction of driver of the offending vehicle by the criminal Court is hardly a circumstance to have bearing on the findings of the Tribunal because the Tribunal is expected to reach its conclusion on the basis of evidence brought before it by the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Delay of four days in registering the FIR is of no consequence -- Only on this ground, it cannot be held that the claimants have not proved the rash and negligent driving of driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Immediately after the accident, on the same day, brother of the deceased has lodged DDR -- In the said DDR, it has been mentioned that the accident has taken place by chance when the deceased was crossing the road and nobody is at fault for this accident -- On the basis of this DDR, the inquest proceedings were carried out – Entire case of the appellants-claimants is based on the statement of PW-2 / “M” – No material on record to show that the claimants have moved any application to the police to take up the investigation of the case and to join “M” in the investigation -- PW-2/ “M” was familiar to the family members of the deceased and he also attended his 'Bhog' ceremony -- He had ample opportunity to disclose negligence of driver but he never came forward with any such version prior to make the statement in the Court – In these circumstances the presence of PW-2 / “M” at the time of occurrence is not established – Claimant failed to prove rash and negligence of Bus driver for causing accident – Claim petition rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2016

Where no criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is registered, that may not be sufficient to dislodge claim of applicant to seek compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Liability of insurer/ insurance company – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Section 51E, 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Employment injury – Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of – Mere incorporation of the Section 51E cannot, per se, exclude the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act for an accident which happened during the time when person was, allegedly, going to his home after the duty hours -- Ingredients of Section 51 E of the Act has to be pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company to invoke Section 53 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 51E, 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee/dependents – Maintainability of – These would be two different and independent remedies available to a person -- Whatever the dependents are getting is partly a product of the contribution made by the employee himself during his life time and partly the contribution of employer -- Employer of the deceased employee may be absolved of any liability of making any payment under any other law relating to the employment injury; qua to the entitlement of the deceased as an employee, however, such periodic payment, which is in the nature of family pension, would not absolve a stranger to the employment from discharging its independent liability created under any other statute -- No provision has been made by the legislature in the Motor Vehicle Act to specifically exclude the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle; in case of motor vehicle accident; if the dependents of the employee are getting compensation or benefits under ESI Act (unlike compensation under Workmen Compensation Act) in the capacity of the deceased being an employee -- Despite the fact that the dependents of the employee may be having some benefits under the ESI Act in the capacity of the deceased being an employee would not debar them from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of -- If the relation between the claimant and the Insurance Company is of a stranger then the claim petition by such a person against such an Insurance Company shall not be barred by Section 53 of ESI Act -- “Any Person” in Section 53 has to be read as a person/entity to whom this Act applies -- Section 61 prohibits only receiving twice the 'similar benefits' by an employee with respect to his employment injuries, nothing beyond that – Bar created by Section 53 would be applicable only in case injuries sustained by of injured/deceased is an employment injury and the same is sustained by injured/deceased in his capacity as employee and only if he is claiming subsequent compensation in his capacity as an employee under this Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 20 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 157 -- Compensation to employee – Liability of Insurance company -- Transfer of vehicle – Intimation to Insurance company – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2017

Section 2(8) -- 'Employment injury' – Interpretation of -- 'employment injury' given by the Act shows that the injury shall be deemed to be an 'employment injury' only if it is caused by an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment of insured, if he is in an insurable employment – Injury would be an 'employment injury' only if he sustains such injury as an employee under this Act -- If the injury sustained by the injured or the death of the insured occurs outside the scope of the employment; the same cannot be considered to be an 'employment injury'.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Section 53 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employee covered under ESI Act – Claim of -- Prohibition of receipt of compensation or damages by the insured or his dependents under Employees State Insurance Act operates only if it is claimed in respect of an employment injury and it is claimed as an employee under that Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Section 53 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employees status -- While traveling, by any means, on the public road a person is not travelling as an employee under the Act, as is required by Section 53 of the Act -- Therefore, Section 53 of the Act cannot be deemed to be a provision for excluding the entitlement of the dependents of the deceased to receive compensation as provided under Motor Vehicles Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Maintainability of claim in motor vehicle accident case -- If the relation between the claimant and the Insurance Company is of a stranger then the claim petition by such a person against such an Insurance Company shall not be barred by Section 53 of ESI Act -- “Any Person” in Section 53 has to be read as a person/entity to whom this Act applies -- Section 61 prohibits only receiving twice the 'similar benefits' by an employee with respect to his employment injuries, nothing beyond that – Bar created by Section 53 would be applicable only in case injuries sustained by of injured/deceased is an employment injury and the same is sustained by injured/deceased in his capacity as employee and only if he is claiming subsequent compensation in his capacity as an employee under this Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

While traveling, by any means, on the public road a person is not travelling as an employee under the Act, as is required by Section 53 of the Act -- Therefore, Section 53 of the Act cannot be deemed to be a provision for excluding the entitlement of the dependents of the deceased to receive compensation as provided under Motor Vehicles Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of – Mere incorporation of the Section 51E cannot, per se, exclude the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act for an accident which happened during the time when person was, allegedly, going to his home after the duty hours -- Ingredients of Section 51 E of the Act has to be pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company to invoke Section 53 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Interpretation of -- 'employment injury' given by the Act shows that the injury shall be deemed to be an 'employment injury' only if it is caused by an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment of insured, if he is in an insurable employment – Injury would be an 'employment injury' only if he sustains such injury as an employee under this Act -- If the injury sustained by the injured or the death of the insured occurs outside the scope of the employment; the same cannot be considered to be an 'employment injury'.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Heavy Transport Vehicle License – Accident by Oil Tanker – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.10.2021

Transport vehicle – Driving license for Light Motor Vehicle – Whether for the drivers having licence to drive light motor vehicles there is a necessity of obtaining endorsement to drive the transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is of class of light motor vehicle – In view of conflicting view : Matter referred to larger Bench to answer following questions: 1 What is the meaning to be given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in section 2(21) of the MV Act ? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it? 2 Whether ‘transport vehicle’ and ‘omnibus’ the “gross vehicle weight” of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. would be a “light motor vehicle” and also motor-car or tractor or a road roller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. and holder of licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the “gross vehicle weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. or a motor-car or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.? 3 What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” by “transport vehicle”? Whether insertion of expression ‘transport vehicle’ under section 10(2)(e) is related to said substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act? 4 What is the effect of amendment of the Form 4 as to operation of the provisions contained in section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “Light Motor Vehicle” has been changed ?

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2016

Deceased was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering and was a brilliant student – Salary of deceased assessed as Rs.10000/- p.m. -- 50% added as future prospects amounts to Rs.10000+Rs.5000=Rs.15000/- p.m. – ½ (Rs.15000-Rs.7500=Rs.7500 p.m.) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased -- Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied i.e. Rs.7500 X 12 X 18= Rs.16,20,000/- -- Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection to parents -- Rs.25,000/- as Funeral charges -- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 17,45,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.17,45,000-Rs.4,21,000=Rs.13,24,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Compensation in Motor vehicle accident – Power of -- Against Tribunal award, the claimants have not filed any appeal -- Whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced – Held, in terms of Section 168 of the Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards -- Even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.10.2021

Daily diary report – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Change of stand in statement – Rash and negligence driving – Version in DDR –In DDR, the claimant stated that the accident had taken place by chance and there was no fault on part of anyone -- Only evidence available with regard to the cause of accident on the record is the affidavit of the claimant stating therein that his motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending car rashly, negligently and in a high speed -- Neither driver of car on his own stepped into the witness box to controvert the deposition of the claimant nor the appellant-insurance company made any effort to examine him to elicit that there was no element of rash and negligent driving involved in the accident – Offending car held liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Deduction of -- Ex-gratia payment to deceased by employer -- Not been shown if the ex gratia amount received by the claimants had been under any Rules of service and would be of continuous assistance – No deduction appears necessary.

(SC) Decided on: 23.04.2019

Fixed deposit -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Principle of “pay and recover” -- Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Recovery right to Insurance company -- Owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence – Driver’s license was proved to be invalid -- Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

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/-,

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future -- Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander also allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future -- Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander also allowed

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Injury case – Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Cause of death -- Doctor’s evidence -- Accident took place on 21.5.2010 and injured got admitted in hospital on 21.6.2010 – Doctor stated that it was a known case of chronic heart disease and alcoholic liver disease and deceased died a natural death and has no relation with the alleged accidental injuries – Held, courts are no experts for determining cause of death -- If court make inference about the cause of death as due to an accident, it invariably look to the fact of accident and the proximate cause for the death and wherever postmortem is done, the report of the Doctor regarding the cause of death – It will be wholly wrong for a Tribunal to discard Doctor's evidence and enter a pure realm of conjecture to determine cause for death – Award passed in favour of claimant is result of misplaced sympathy – Award is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Non-renewal of – 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 -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Accident within 30 days – Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.9.2011 – in view of Proviso to Section 14 of M.V. Act, 1988 , the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Composite negligence – Claimant’s right to recover compensation – (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – Rs. 1500/- for extra nourishment also awarded

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment also awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Poultry labourer – Injury with 25% disability -- Rs.10,000/- also awarded towards extra nourishment

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Adverse inference -- High Court directed re-examination to know physical condition as on date -- Medical condition on the date of accident remains undisputed and was assessed to have suffered 9% disability qua whole body -- There is no challenge to this finding by the respondents -- If the claimant failed to get himself re-examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insured-owner -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Duty of owner – L.M.V. licence – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Renewal of fake licence – Liability of Employer -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Renewal of fake licence – Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Renewal of -- Liability of Employer -- Whether the employer/owner has taken proper precautions before employing driver to drive school mini bus -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Renewal of -- Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

No post-mortem – FIR after more than one month – While at one stage it was stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place it was stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment – Circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect –The person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor – A complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case – No hospital records to indicate the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged – Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Dependency of -- Deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him -- Deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister -- Deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival -- Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Third party – Any two individuals are separate and distinct legal entities with independent rights and liabilities -- If due to negligence in driving a vehicle, father causes the death of his own son, the dependents of such deceased son can very well raise a claim against the negligent father of such deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Deceased 6 months old son -- Loss of only son, parents had to suffer mental shock -- Deceased, as per Indian customs, was to look after his parents in their old age -- In such circumstances, Rs. 5,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for loss of love and affection, future support granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

73 years old Father – Deceased was survived by widow, two minor children and old father aged 73 years -- Considering the age of father, it cannot be held that father was not dependent upon the earnings of his son – 1/4th deduction made for self-expenses upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

Deceased having wife, two minor children, aged father – Dependency assessed as 60% after deducting 40% for personal expenses – Compensation order to be given with 8% interest from the date of filing claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Deceased was 23 years of age and his parents were in the age group of 40 to 45 years – Multiplier of 18 applied, compensation worked out to Rs.6,80,400/- -- Rate of interest modified to 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunal and High Court.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Father of the deceased cannot be considered to be dependent upon the income of the deceased.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Entitlement of Parents / Brothers -- Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased -- Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Parents/ Brothers’ entitlement -- Brothers could not be said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased -- Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Bachelor deceased – Presumed to be 18 year old at the time of death -- Monthly income of deceased was assessed as Rs.3000/- per month -- 50% added as future prospects [Rs.3000/- + Rs.1500/-] Rs. 4500/- per month -- 50% deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased [Rs.4500/-] - [Rs.2250/-]=Rs.2250/- per month -- Compensation after multiplier of 16 was applied [Rs.2250/-x12x16] Rs.4,32,000/- -- For loss of love and affection awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- for each parent) -- Funeral expenses awarded as Rs.25,000/- -- Total compensation awarded is Rs.5,57,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.5,57,000/-) - (Rs.2,90,000/-) = Rs.2,67,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

Engineering student – Deceased was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering and was a brilliant student – Salary of deceased assessed as Rs.10000/- p.m. -- 50% added as future prospects amounts to Rs.10000+Rs.5000=Rs.15000/- p.m. – ½ (Rs.15000-Rs.7500=Rs.7500 p.m.) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased -- Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied i.e. Rs.7500 X 12 X 18= Rs.16,20,000/- -- Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection to parents -- Rs.25,000/- as Funeral charges -- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 17,45,000/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.17,45,000-Rs.4,21,000=Rs.13,24,000/- -- Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- 50% added under the head of future prospects to the annual income – Deducting 10% tax net annual income comes to Rs.2,45,511/- -- Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674 X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/- -- Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs.25,000/- granted – For love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- awarded -- Courts below have erred in not granting the interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. – Total compensation payable to the appellants will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased were 33 years old – Monthly income assessed at Rs.12,000/- -- Annual income of both the deceased would be Rs.1,44,000/- -- Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards their personal expenses, in order to determine the loss of dependency and keeping in view the age of the minor children, their widowed wives and the aged parents -- Balance amount comes to Rs.1,08,000/- -- Multiplier of 16 awarded -- Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the children awarded towards loss of love and affection of the deceased father -- Parents of the deceased son are to be awarded Rs.50,000/- each for the loss of love and affection – Rs.25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of both the deceased -- Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation -- Appellants are held to be entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Bachelor deceased – Unmarried boy aged 21 years deceased, a Constable with Punjab Police – Claim petition by parents and the minor sister – 50% deduction has to be made -- Annual contribution would come to Rs.20,700/- and applying the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the parents, the compensation would come to Rs.2,27,700/- -- A sum of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is added as loss of estate; raising the total to be Rs.2,42,700/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Agony of parents -- Shortening of leg by 1 inch of two minors with 30% / 20% permanent disability -- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- each towards permanent disability of the minors, Rs.25,000/- each to parents of minors towards agony of parents, Rs.25,000/- each for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) each for attendant and Rs.5,000/- each for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Bachelor deceased -- Even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family -- However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Bachelor deceased – Unmarried deceased aged 24 years -- Old Father and unmarried sister -- High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- 40% added towards future prospects -- 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses -- Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister -- An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister granted – Multiplier of 18 applied -- Total compensation awarded Rs.14,25,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Filial Consortium -- An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister each granted.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Loss of Estate -- In exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Proof of accident -- Copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and the charge framed by the Court is available on record, which shows that respondent-driver has been charge sheeted for causing the injuries while driving the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner – Charge-sheet establishes that pillion rider has also suffered the injuries in this very accident – Driver of the tractor has stepped into the witness box and admitted that he is facing the trial in the criminal Court for causing this accident -- He also admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the tractor -- He has simply denied the accident and deposed that no accident has taken place with his tractor -- Bald statement of respondent-driver cannot rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on the mode of negligence and involvement of the vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Reliance upon investigation report in FIR -- Driver of offending vehicle – Insurance Company’s liability -- Contention that Driving Licence placed on record by the owner is of one Mahesh whereas, driver of offending vehicle is Bablu -- It is the specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that Mahesh and Bablu are one and the same person -- Driving Licence bears the photograph of the said respondent -- Father's name of Mahesh is duly mentioned as Ram Sarup in the Driving Licence -- Claim petition clearly mentioned the driver's father to be Ram Sarup -- Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed in FIR duly mentioned the accused as Bablu @ Mahesh son of Ram Sarup -- Insurance Company has not brought on record any evidence to negate the abovesaid -- No benefit can accrue to the Insurance Company on this count.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Accident by financed vehicle – Hire purchase agreement – Borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place – Person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner -- High Court has erroneously opined that the financer had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it -- Nothing on record that this fact was known to the financer or it was done in collusion with the financer – Liability could not have mulcted on the financer.

(SC) Decided on: 01.12.2014

Pensionary Benefits – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Pension and Gratuity -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” -- Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Possible view – Setting aside of -- Tribunal duly considered the evidence and the material accompanying the charge-sheet filed, as also the plea taken by the insurer and the evidence of RW-1 – Held, conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible view, which could not have been disturbed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the insurer.

(SC) Decided on : 28.03.2018

No post-mortem – While at one stage it was stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place it was stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment – Circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect –The person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor – A complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case – No hospital records to indicate the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged – Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Nature of -- Duty of First Appellate Court/ High Court – An appeal u/s 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence -- High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how, and if not, why? -- As a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute -- Impugned judgment also does not, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons -- Impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable – Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2016

Revisional power -- All the claimants are major by age -- 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 -- Petition allowed, order of 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Revisional Court’s power -- Execution of order – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2020

Future prospects – In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death -- A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Income Tax Return – Five Dependents -- As per income tax return, deceased was having total income of 45000 Canadian dollars per annum -- After deducting tax effective income comes to Canadian dollars 33360 per annum -- One third is deducted as personal expenses, balance comes to Canadian dollars 25020 -- As per ITR, deceased was little more than 46 years of age, Multiplier of 13 is to be applied -- Amount of compensation comes to Canadian dollars 325260 (25020x13) -- Family was to go back to Canada, therefore, claimants will be entitled to compensation in Canadian dollars and not in Indian rupees, as per income of deceased in Canada.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Deceased slipped/skidded from the motorcycle and it is the consistent stand of the relatives that there is no criminal intent -- However, after two days, when the patient died, the theory of involvement of the offending vehicle was coined and the same has been proved before the Tribunal -- However, when the case came up before the Criminal Court, the same very eye witness turned hostile so that the accused-driver is not put to any harm and thus cleverly the insurer of the offending vehicle has been made to be held liable to pay the compensation in the instant case – Held, there is a massive increase in such like cases of fraud -- High Court in its supervisory role has the onerous duty to cleanse the lower Courts of such fraudulent acts -- Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed -- Claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed -- Superintendent of Police is directed to investigate the matter and initiate the appropriate proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2016

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Loss of future earning -- Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Loss of future earning -- Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Driver-injured disability of 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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Victim in Coma – Contention for deduction towards personal living expenses rejected – Assessment of Rs.3500/- as monthly income -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Earning capacity -- Physical functional disability of the left leg was assessed at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% -- Earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced – It is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body -- Appellant is held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Permanent disability of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 was rightly applied, thereby making the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings -- Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in day to day expenditure in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Claimant had suffered disability of 10% -- Functional disability would be less -- In the absence of any evidence, the income of the injured can be taken to be as that of a labourer -- Minimum wages in Haryana in the year 2014 were Rs.7,400/- per month -- Taking the functional disability to be 5%, the loss per month would be Rs.370/- and the amount towards the disability would come to Rs.370 x 12 x 14 = Rs.62,160/- -- Claimant had suffered a fracture which led to the disability and he would have not been able to resume work for at least four months, therefore, an addition of 4 months' salary will have to be made, which comes to Rs.7,400/- X 4 = Rs.29,600/- -- Claimant had been allowed the actual medical expenses, attendant charges, diet, transportation i.e. all other heads -- Amount allowed on the head of pain and suffering and disability can be taken as Rs. 25,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Amputation of left leg at the age of 29 years – As per Medical certificate, appellant sustained a permanent disability of 90% -- Courts below reduced the permanent disability to 60% on the ground that the remaining body of the appellant is healthy -- 90% permanent disability due to the accident is liable to be maintained -- Considering the appellant’s annual income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., 90% of it would come to Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17, he would be entitled under the head of ‘permanent disability’ to compensation computed at Rs. 3,67,200/- -- Appellant is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the artificial limb -- Appellant is also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2017

Amputation of leg -- Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability – Salary of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/- p.m. -- Annual income of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/-x12 = Rs.50,400/ -- 30% added towards future prospects Rs.50,400/- + 30% = Rs.65,520/- -- Applying multiplier of 15, compensation amounted to Rs.9,82,800/- -- Compensation for future treatment as Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings as Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and medical treatment as Rs.3,01,320/- awarded -- Total compensation awarded as Rs.17,84,120/- -- Enhanced amount of Compensation is (Rs.17,84,120/-)-(Rs.5,31,440/-) = Rs.12,52,680/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,52,680/- shall be payable within a period of two months -- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – Salary assessed as Rs.10000 per month, Annual Salary came to be Rs.1,20,000/- -- 50% added towards Future Prospects (23 years of age) 120000 + 50% = Rs.1,80,000/- -- Disability 75% Rs.180000 X 75% = Rs.1,35,000/- -- After applying multiplier of 18 compensation came out to be 135000 X 18 = 24,30,000/-, for future treatment Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and Medical treatment Rs.6,58,507/- awarded -- Total compensation awarded Rs.35,88,507/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 35,88,507 - 6,78,507 = Rs.29,10,000/-Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Driver-claimant injured with 100% disability for earning – Compensation in motor vehicle accident claim case -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- After considering 50% enhancement for future prospects, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated at (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1750/-) x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/- -- Rs. 73,500 for loss of earning (Rs. 3,500/- X 21 months) since the appellant was unable to work for 21 months from the date of the accident till the filing of the claim petition -- Rs.1,50,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident -- Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper – Rs. 500/- for damages to clothing, Rs. 22,400/- for expense for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander allowed – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Doctor-injured -- Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering the fact that 60% permanent disability and over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent -- Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -- Rs. 2,14,848/- for loss of salary during treatment in the year 2001-2002 -- Rs. 66,566/- for expenditure incurred in one Hospital and Rs. 20,000/- for expenditure incurred in second Hospital -- Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and sufferings -- Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment -- Rs. 28,500/- as special diet charges -- Grand Total: Rs.34,99,914/- rounded off 35,00,000/- -- Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- will be along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

Driver injured – Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again -- Contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability -- Applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.’s case (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Claimants held entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head (funeral expense and loss of estate).

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2022

Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

Additional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2020

Funeral expenses assessed at Rs.15,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Funeral Expenses, Rs. 15,000/- awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Expenses on funeral Rs.15,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites assessed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 22.11.2017

Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively -- Aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Funeral expenses and loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Permanent disability to the extent of 44%, and lost hearing power of one ear and vision of right eye – Applying the minimum wages payable to daily wagers, at D.C. Rates, income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month -- Concededly, the appellant was 36 years of age -- In these circumstances, by applying multiplier of '16', loss of future income would be Rs.5,000 X 12 X 16 = Rs.9,60,000/-, 25% of which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- -- Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal for pain and suffering is further enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2016

55% disability of driver – Not able to work as driver – Future loss of income – Assessment of -- Monthly income Rs.4500/- -- Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again -- Contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability -- Applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.’s case (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Functional disability -- Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

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/-,

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 69% permanent disability – Future Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000/- awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

Amputation of leg -- Appellant would require three more replacements of the artificial left leg during his lifetime – High Court erred in granting Rs.50,000/- only for future medical expenses – Amount enhanced by Rs.2,50,000/- in addition to that granted by the High Court.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

In view of his medical condition and future medical needs and requirements, further Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards future medical treatment & incidental expenses.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Shortening of leg by 1 inch of two minors with 30% / 20% permanent disability -- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- each towards permanent disability of the minors, Rs.25,000/- each to parents of minors towards agony of parents, Rs.25,000/- each for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) each for attendant and Rs.5,000/- each for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Deceased 28 years of age – Notional Income -- Future prospects – Notional income considered as 6,500/- per month, 40% added towards future prospects.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased mason aged 48/52 years – High Court awarded compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 2,97,000/- considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased – Total Rs.3,92,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition awarded – Held, while awarding loss of dependency, future prospects and rise in income ought to have been considered -- 25% of Rs. 3,000/- per month considered towards future prospects -- It can be said to be just compensation -- Claimants held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

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 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002 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.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2021

Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50%.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Deceased was 34 years 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’.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Deceased 34 years old professional driver -- 25% increase for future prospects added.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

Age at the time of accident was found to be above 34 years -- Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – 40% awarded for loss of future prospects.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Deceased Government employee – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Age of the injured/appellant was 23 years -- Future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration – Future prospects 50% of the actual salary taken.

(SC) Decided on: 27.07.2020

Deceased 40 years old – Future prospects @ 30%.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, while treating him as a manual worker – So, the claim petition was maintainable u/s 163-A of the Act – Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – Compensation for future prospects assessed at Rs.9,600/- for 2 years.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased aged 35 years – Future prospects 40%.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Deceased was aged 50 years 3 months -- High Court reduced the future prospects at 15% from 30% -- Held, High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30% -- Award of Tribunal restored.

(SC) Decided on: 12.06.2020

Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- Claimants shall be entitle to addition in income for future prospects @ 40%.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased, self-employed person aged 37 years -- 40% loss of future prospects assessed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

EFB Scheme Monthly Payment – Deduction of – Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Unmarried deceased aged 24 years – Unskilled worker – Nature of his employment being taken as a self-employed person -- 40% added towards future prospects.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Deceased 17 years old – Income as per daily wages Rs.5,000/- taken – 40% future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.02.2018

Deceased aged 42 years -- Annual income of the deceased as per (ITR for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) would be Rs 1,81,500 – After adding 25% for future prospects, income would stand at Rs 2,26,875.

(SC) Decided on : 02.02.2018

Bachelor deceased 29 years old, in 2006 -- As regards future prospects, an addition of 50 per cent would be warranted.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Addition of 40% towards future prospects would also be warranted.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force -- Future prospects 15% given.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased carpenter aged 25 years – Addition of 50% for future prospect, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Notional income – Deceased, having been proved to be a self-employed person by the claimants, they are entitled to the increase of compensation on account of future prospects to the extent of 40% -- Even in case of assessment of the income by the Tribunal on notional basis, the claimants would be entitled to the benefit of the increase of compensation on account of future prospects of the deceased -- Any income assessed by the Tribunal shall be the established income for the purpose of grant of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Benefit of future prospects cannot be denied on the ground that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis and that the claimants has not proved, by documentary evidence, the exact figure of that notional income.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 22.11.2017

Deceased was having a license of vegetable vendor -- Monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.10,000/- per month – Benefit of future prospects cannot be denied to a self-employed person – Deceased aged 50 plus, claimants are entitled to the benefit of enhancement on account of future prospects @ 10%.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 22.11.2017

Permanent job -- While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made -- Addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years -- In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15% -- Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Self-employed – Job on fixed salary -- In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years -- An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation -- Established income means the income minus the tax component.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Age of the deceased was 45 years and he was an employee in the Government Press, 30% increase in his income made by the Tribunal cannot be reduced.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Deceased was unmarried and aged about 23 years at the time of his demise – 50% on account of future prospects cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of any matter/reference before the Hon'ble Supreme Court qua compensation on account of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2017

Accident dated 26.8.2013 – Deceased was aged 32 years -- 50% appreciation for future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Deceased 47 years at the time of accident – Addition of 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Deceased was 42/43 years when she died in the accident, there had to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Deceased aged 21 years -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of 50% increase towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Rajesh’s case (2013) 9 SCC 54 -- Disbursement of amount of compensation towards 'future prospects' shall be subject to furnishing requisite indemnity bonds by the claimants as the question of admissibility of future prospects to daily wagers/self-employed persons is pending adjudication before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.16735 of 2014.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.05.2016

Accident occurred in 2011 – Deceased was 23 years old and was motor mechanic -- 50% of his income shall be added towards the future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Deceased was serving in army and getting salary of Rs.9056/- p.m. taken as to be Rs.9000/- -- Deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of accident -- So, 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be added towards the future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.04.2016

Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of the accident and was owner of commercial vehicle -- Tribunal has added 50% of his income towards future prospects -- Income of the transporters always increases with the passage of time as freights are increasing day by day -- Thus, there was very bright prospects of the increase in the income of the deceased in future -- No fault can be found in adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal in order to assess the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2016

Deceased was 46 years at the time of death an addition of 30% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Concept of future prospects envisages chances or opportunities for success and further progress in life which is a normal course of event for every human being involved in any avocation -- Even if, keeping in view his ability, capacity etc., one may not be in a position to rise in life, there is another aspect that justifies the grant of addition in the income of the deceased, which is the 'inflationary trend' in which we all are living -- Amount of compensation is required to be just and reasonable keeping the inflationary trend in view, where the prices of the basic amenities of life are likely to increase further – Award of 50% towards future prospects, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Deceased aged 44 years was working as Home Guard with monthly salary of Rs.12,046/-, the services could be terminated at any time as he was working on daily wage basis -- Increase in future income Rs.2250/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Age of the deceased was 43 years, there has to be an addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Accident dated 10.12.1998 – Deceased aged 48/50 years -- An addition of 30% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased Vikram was 19 years of age at the time of his death -- Keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh’s 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil), 170 (SC), an addition of 50% is ordered in the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased aged 37 years at the time of his death -- An addition of 50% to his actual income computing future prospects is to be allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Deceased was 29 year old as per the postmortem report – 50% of the income added as future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Deceased was serving in army -- Deceased was less than 27 years -- 50% future prospects added towards his income.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

Presumed to be 18 year old at the time of death -- 50% added as future prospects [Rs.3000/- + Rs.1500/-] Rs. 4500/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

At the time of accident, the appellant (injured) was a young man of 24 years -- 30% added towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – 50% added towards Future Prospects (23 years of age).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Deceased was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering and was a brilliant student – Salary of deceased assessed as Rs.10000/- p.m. -- 50% added as future prospects amounts to Rs.10000+Rs.5000=Rs.15000/- p.m.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Deceased carpenter aged 25 years – Addition of 50% for future prospect, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Deceased aged 22 years was bachelor -- Claimant held entitled for 50% increase in income of deceased towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – 50% enhancement for future prospects.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Deceased aged 30 years was Bachelor -- Multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17 – By taking monthly income as Rs.12,000 with future prospects of 50% increase total compensation will be assessed as : (Rs.12,000 + Rs.6000) x 50% x 17 = Rs.18,36,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 15.05.2015

Deceased was bachelor aged 18 years -- 50% appreciation for future prospects required to be given.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2015

Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- 50% added under the head of future prospects to the annual income.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased was under 40 years of age, 50% increase has to be allowed towards future prospects.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Deceased was unmarried boy aged 21 years, a Constable with Punjab Police – Salary Rs.2,300/- p.m., addition of 50% had to be made towards future prospects and the total income would come to Rs.3450/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Accident pertains to the year 1989 -- Deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death –Deceased being self-employed a notional addition of 50% on account of future prospects is ordered.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2014

As a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years [where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’] -- Addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. -- There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. -- Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted.

(SC) Decided on: 15.04.2009

Injury case -- Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability -- Compensation for future treatment as Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings as Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and medical treatment as Rs.3,01,320/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Injury case – Permanent disability -- Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – For future treatment Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and Medical treatment Rs.6,58,507/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Injury case -- Applicant has suffered 65% disability – Total compensation of Rs.5,82,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- on account of loss of income caused by disability, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for special diet, Rs.30,000/- for attendant, Rs.20,000/- on account of transportation expenses, Rs.60,000/- for loss of income, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment of life and Rs.15,000/- for future treatment awarded by the Tribunal – Applicant received multiple injuries on various parts of his body including head, he remained admitted in the Hospital -- On his treatment, an amount of Rs.2,36,993/- was spent by the applicant -- Compensation awarded by the leaned Tribunal cannot be said to exaggerated or on the higher side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Third party liability – Insurance policy is attached to the 'vehicle' in question and not to Geographical expense of the area of operation of the vehicle in question -- Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation only on the ground that the vehicle was used in any particular city, state or a particular geographical area -- Insurance Company cannot even avoid its liability qua third party, on the ground that it can charge extra premium to cover any particular geographical area and that the insured has not paid that extra premium to cover that particular geographical area.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.11.2017

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Third party Policy -- Pillion rider – Liability of Insurance Company – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Concept of -- Unpaid/Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger cars/pillion rider on motor cycle are required to be compulsorily covered under Compulsory Insurance -- Passengers carried for hire or reward in public service vehicles has always been covered under the Compulsory Insurance qua third party -- Claim of paid/non-Gratuitous Passengers in private passenger car is excluded due to this being a defense available to Insurance Company under the Section 149 of the New Act -- Even in case of Goods Carriage' the concept of Gratuitous Passengers does not survive anymore -- In their case also it is carrying the passengers, per se, whether Gratuitous or paid, which is not permissible -- Hence the distinction of Gratuitous Passenger is no more any plea in case of Goods Carriage as well -- The concept of 'Gratuitous Passengers' does not survive under the New Motor Vehicle Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Whether the gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Deduction is not permissible -- Amounts of pension and gratuity are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer -- Pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased -- They are more in the nature of deferred wages -- Said amount cannot be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Loss of dependency – Determination of net salary of deceased -- Gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month – High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs.21,168/- per month -- Both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Rule 5 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma & Ors. (SC) (2016) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10991 = 2016 (3) L.A.R. 509.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Proof of -- FIR was registered on the very next day at the instance of PW-2 -- It was specifically recorded that the offending vehicle was coming on wrong side and hit the car from front -- Evidence produced by the claimants was not rebutted by the insurer -- In cases under the Act, onus of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases -- Claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Held, claimants have been able to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on:06.05.2019

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.10.2021

Deceased Driver holding licence of H.M.V. – Minimum wages taken at Rs. 9,000/- -- Deceased was 25 years of age and was a matriculate, working as a driver with a valid license for driving heavy motor vehicles -- A driver in Himachal Pradesh on an average earns Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per Minimum Wages Act -- Courts below have failed to take judicial notice of the same and the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job -- Gross monthly income of the deceased taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m., i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- p.a. -- On deduction of 20% towards income tax, the net income comes to Rs.86,400/- p.a. -- Further, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.10,36,800/- -- Further Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- to each minor child of the deceased towards loss of love and affection awarded -- Wife also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate – Total compensation is payable alongwith 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2014

Deceased had set up a milk chilling center and had been operating the same -- As per the chart circulated by the Labour Department, Punjab, the minimum income for the highly skilled upper labourer comes to Rs.3,304/- -- Ends of justice would be adequately met, in case, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Accident by financed vehicle – Obligation of Financer -- Borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place – Person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner -- High Court has erroneously opined that the financer had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it -- Nothing on record that this fact was known to the financer or it was done in collusion with the financer – Liability could not have mulcted on the financer.

(SC) Decided on: 01.12.2014

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Registered owner – Bus given on hire to Public Transport – Insurer’s liability -- Policy of insurance is contractual obligation between the insured and the insurer -- It has not been shown that owner could not have given bus on hire as per any provision of policy – In the absence of any stipulation prohibiting such an arrangement in the insurance policy, in view of agreement of lease, the Registered owner and insurer cannot also escape from the liability -- More so, in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act of 1988, the insurer cannot escape the liability.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Deceased aged 44 years was working as Home Guard with monthly salary of Rs.12,046/-, the services could be terminated at any time as he was working on daily wage basis -- Considering the deceased as a casual labourer, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.7500/- per month – There were four dependents on the income of the deceased his wife, son and two daughters, 1/4th of the income was rightly deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself -- Increase in future income Rs.2250/- -- Annual dependency is calculated as 3/4 of Rs.9750 x 12 = Rs.87,750/- Multiplier 14 applied – Total compensation as Rs.12,28,500/- -- The amount of Rs.5000/- awarded under the funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- whereas the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- -- A further amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to appellant-claimant No.2 for loss of love, care and guidance -- Amount of Rs.5000/- awarded under loss of estate is just and adequate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased-lady was a household lady aged about 45 years – Services rendered by a housewife cannot be less valued than what a daily wager can earn -- Considering the relevant facts the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.1500/- per month -- Multiplier of '14' would be the appropriate multiplier -- Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased lady was non-working -- Her notional income was taken as that of a home maker as Rs.5000/- -- After deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased the annual income came to be Rs.30,000/--- Age of the deceased was 60 years -- After applying the multiplier of 9, the compensation came to Rs.2,70,000/- -- An amount of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded for loss of love and affection for the claimants and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses of the deceased -- The total compensation came to Rs.3,95,000/- -- Award held to be rightly passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Accident of 1990 – Income of deceased as House-wife taken as Rs.3,000/- p.m. -- Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses contribution of the deceased and the family is calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month -- Deceased was aged about 22 years, proper multiplier to be adopted is 18 -- Dependency is calculated at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2000 x 12 x 18) -- Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor children -- Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the High Court is maintained -- Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- alongwith 9% interest p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Assessment of income -- Deceased was a housewife and a home maker – It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother -- Services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed -- Courts have recognized the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and that it cannot be computed in terms of money -- A house-wife/home-maker does not work by the clock and she is in constant attendance of the family throughout and such services rendered by the home maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the loss of dependency -- Taking deceased as the home maker, it is reasonable to fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Reliance upon investigation report in FIR -- Driver of offending vehicle – Insurance Company’s liability -- Contention that Driving Licence placed on record by the owner is of one Mahesh whereas, driver of offending vehicle is Bablu -- It is the specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that Mahesh and Bablu are one and the same person -- Driving Licence bears the photograph of the said respondent -- Father's name of Mahesh is duly mentioned as Ram Sarup in the Driving Licence -- Claim petition clearly mentioned the driver's father to be Ram Sarup -- Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed in FIR duly mentioned the accused as Bablu @ Mahesh son of Ram Sarup -- Insurance Company has not brought on record any evidence to negate the abovesaid -- No benefit can accrue to the Insurance Company on this count.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle injury case – Medical expenses -- Future medical expenses -- Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred during medical treatment of the appellant – In view of his medical condition and future medical needs and requirements, further Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards future medical treatment & incidental expenses by applying the legal principles laid down in Nagappa’s case (2003) 2 SCC 274 – Amount of Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant expenses (17 months) and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation also awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Assessment of income -- Income above minimum wages -- High Court took income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5,342/- -- Finding affirmed.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Injury to minor in motor vehicle accident – Compensation -- A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per the figure given for a non-earning individuals in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Assessment of income – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Proof of -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependents – Assessment of income – A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department shows that the date of filing the ITR was prior to the death of the deceased -- Hence, the High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07 while assessing the income of the deceased -- ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 reflects the income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. made basis for computing the compensation – Future prospects 40% and deduction towards his personal expenses made by 1/4th -- Multiplier adopted at 16 is appropriate -- Under the conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- (Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- + Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- + Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-) awarded – Total compensation comes to Rs.17,50,000/- -- Though the claimant did not file appeal before the High Court, Supreme Court by exercising powers under Article 142 enhanced the same to do complete justice between the parties – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. awarded from date of filing the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Death case -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 47 years at the time of accident – Income as per ITR is Rs.4,80,000/- per annum – Adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.6,24,000/- -- Deducting Rs.44,800/- towards income tax, according to the slab given in the relevant assessment year, the amount comes to Rs.5,79,200/- -- There being two dependents namely deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses made – After deducting 1/3rd, the amount comes to Rs.3,86,130/- -- Multiplier of '13' applied is appropriate and the compensation payable to the claimants for loss of dependency comes to Rs.50,19,700/- -- In addition for funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Downloaded from internet – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income of deceased -- Whether secondary evidence -- Income tax officer stated as PW that now no signed return is required to be filed by an assessee -- Return is filed online and the reports Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 have been processed and finalized by the department – Held, merely because the returns were downloaded from the internet would not make them secondary evidence -- Returns proved in due process of law and the documents were very much admissible in evidence – Income of deceased taken as per ITR.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Section 137 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR of accident – Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law -- On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that PW-2 was a planted witness and was not present when the occurrence in question took place, however, in the same breath, learned counsel while placing reliance upon the DDR recorded by PW-2, is trying to demolish the case of the claimants by urging that he had stated therein that the accident in question had happened suddenly and thus no one was at fault -- PW-2, while stepping into the witness-box gave a vivid account of the accident in question -- He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he stood his ground and the respondents were unable to create any dent in his testimony – Appeal of Insurance company against award passed by Tribunal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Section 101, 102 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Section 137, 139, 145 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Section 45 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Injury case – Expert evidence -- Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Section 63, 65-B – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income of deceased -- Income tax returns downloaded from internet – Whether secondary evidence -- Income tax officer stated as PW that now no signed return is required to be filed by an assessee -- Return is filed online and the reports Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 have been processed and finalized by the department – Held, merely because the returns were downloaded from the internet would not make them secondary evidence -- Returns proved in due process of law and the documents were very much admissible in evidence – Income of deceased taken as per ITR.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

Section 115 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Award of Tribunal – Doctrine of estoppel -- Death of cleaner of truck no. HR-38P-8270 and in award, the Tribunal had held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending truck No. HR-73-0804 – No appeal by insurance company -- That judgment operates as estoppel against the Insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Section 101 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident – Proof of -- No report with regard to the accident was lodged with the police by the claimant -- No doubt, registration of a F.I.R. with regard to the accident is not a pre-condition for claiming compensation by a victim or in case of death by the legal heirs of the deceased victim of an accident under the provisions of the Act of 1988 -- However, the claimant is legally required to prove the occurrence of motor accident and to also prove that he had sustained injuries during the accident or in case of death that the deceased died due to the injuries received during the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Section 101 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor vehicle accident – Proof of -- Driver and owner of the offending tractor completely denied the factum of accident -- Contrary to their stand taken in the written reply, when driver of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness box, on being cross-examined by the claimant, he outrightly admitted that the motorcycle of the claimant had struck into his tractor -- It was crystal clear from the account of accident given by him that he had changed his version only with an intention to favour the claimant -- Medical document also do not indicate that the claimant had suffered injuries during a motor accident -- Claimant explained no reason for not lodging a report with any authority with regard to the accident -- Claimant utterly failed to prove the occurrence of accident and also that he suffered the injuries during a motor accident – Claim rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Rule 24 -- Insurance policy cancelled by financier – Liability of insurance company -- Ld. Single Judge while directing the Insurance Company to make good the loss suffered by the insured/respondent No. 1 granted liberty to claim the amount from the financier -- Rule does not provide that the policy can be cancelled on a request made by the financier of the vehicle -- Nothing on record to suggest that any request was made by the insured to cancel the policy -- Rule further provides that the policy can be cancelled after ensuring that the vehicle is insured elsewhere, at least for Liability Only cover -- Insurance Company had not verified that the vehicle in question has been insured with any other Company and the policy was cancelled only on the request of the financier – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.01.2018

Contributory negligence – Corporation bus was turning to its right side without showing the turn indicator to enter the bus depot -- Tribunal and the High Court have erred in the apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the Corporation bus – Accident was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle of the Corporation – Erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal & concurring with the same by the High Court on the question of contributory negligence of the deceased is liable to be set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Injury to Doctor with 60 % disability – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering the fact that 60% permanent disability and over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent -- Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -- Rs. 2,14,848/- for loss of salary during treatment in the year 2001-2002 -- Rs. 66,566/- for expenditure incurred in one Hospital and Rs. 20,000/- for expenditure incurred in second Hospital -- Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and sufferings -- Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment -- Rs. 28,500/- as special diet charges -- Grand Total: Rs.34,99,914/- rounded off 35,00,000/- -- Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- will be along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

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 – Hence, 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/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

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) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12247.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – Future prospects – No deduction for personal expenses -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

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.

(SC) Decided on: 27.07.2020

Expert evidence -- Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Disability of -- Non-examination of doctor – No doctor has been examined qua the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Award is also silent as to the nature of the injuries which have been suffered by the claimant/appellant -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, Court deemed it just and proper to remand the present case to the Tribunal to be decided afresh -- Parties shall be at liberty to lead fresh evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.03.2020

Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Liability of Insurance Company -- Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Income Tax Return – Reliance upon -- Loss of taxable earning should be reckoned for the purpose of determining just compensation -- Computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return was annual taxable income was Rs.77,480/- (rounded off) and income tax due thereon was Rs.4,496/- -- After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head ‘loss of income’ of the appellant would be Rs.72,984/-. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.(2008) 2 SCC 763 relied.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm -- Appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life alongwith uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 06.11.2017

Assessment of compensation -- In case of permanent disability, the compensation towards permanent disability as well as loss of earning capacity on account of said permanent disability have to be assessed independently – Determination of compensation for loss of earning capacity on the basis of multiplier method is proper -- In determination of compensation, some guess work and hypothetical considerations based on sympathy can be worked out, but ultimate determination has to be considered with some objective standards -- Endeavor should be to award just compensation keeping in view the sufferings of the injured person.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 was rightly applied, thereby making the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings -- Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in day to day expenditure in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Permanent disability of 10% -- Claimant had suffered disability of 10% -- Functional disability would be less -- In the absence of any evidence, the income of the injured can be taken to be as that of a labourer -- Minimum wages in Haryana in the year 2014 were Rs.7,400/- per month -- Taking the functional disability to be 5%, the loss per month would be Rs.370/- and the amount towards the disability would come to Rs.370 x 12 x 14 = Rs.62,160/- -- Claimant had suffered a fracture which led to the disability and he would have not been able to resume work for at least four months, therefore, an addition of 4 months' salary will have to be made, which comes to Rs.7,400/- X 4 = Rs.29,600/- -- Claimant had been allowed the actual medical expenses, attendant charges, diet, transportation i.e. all other heads -- Amount allowed on the head of pain and suffering and disability can be taken as Rs. 25,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Amputation of left leg at the age of 29 years – As per Medical certificate, appellant sustained a permanent disability of 90% -- Courts below reduced the permanent disability to 60% on the ground that the remaining body of the appellant is healthy -- 90% permanent disability due to the accident is liable to be maintained -- Considering the appellant’s annual income as Rs.24,000/- p.a., 90% of it would come to Rs.21,600/- and applying the multiplier 17, he would be entitled under the head of ‘permanent disability’ to compensation computed at Rs. 3,67,200/- -- Appellant is also entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the artificial limb -- Appellant is also entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2017

Permanent disability – Principle of multiplier -- Principle of multiplier has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident -- Multiplier system is based on the doctrine of equity, equality and necessity -- A departure therefrom is to be done only in rare and exceptional cases.

(SC) Decided on: 02.02.2017

Permanent disability – Principle of multiplier -- Appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well -- Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age -- There is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method – Appellant aged 30 years -- Multiplier of 17 would be admissible -- Keeping in view that the permanent disability is 70%, the compensation under this head would be worked out at Rs.14,28,000 -- For mental and physical agony and frustration and disappointment towards life, amount enhanced to Rs.1,30,000, besides other expenses.

(SC) Decided on: 02.02.2017

Injury to 10 year old child – 5% disability -- Claimant has suffered 5% permanent disability -- Claimant-appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- [Rs.90,000-(towards permanent disability) + Rs.15,000/- (towards pain and sufferings, special diet etc.) + Rs.25,000/- (towards loss of studies) + Rs.50,000 (towards loss of future).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

Future loss of income -- Permanent disability to the extent of 44%, and lost hearing power of one ear and vision of right eye – Applying the minimum wages payable to daily wagers, at D.C. Rates, income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month -- Concededly, the appellant was 36 years of age -- In these circumstances, by applying multiplier of '16', loss of future income would be Rs.5,000 X 12 X 16 = Rs.9,60,000/-, 25% of which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- -- Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal for pain and suffering is further enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2016

Minor child injured with 100% injuries – Total compensation of Rs.30,60,000/- awarded under different heads -- Child aged 14 years left with mentally deranged and physically incapacitated to move and is bed ridden – Doctors on assessment have declare him 100% disabled -- For the said purpose, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is taken as notional income -- Multiplier of 18 is applied, claimant-appellant, is held entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'loss of earning capacity') + Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'attendant charges) + 1,00,000/- (towards 'pain and suffering') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards transportation) + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards special diet) + Rs.5,00,000/- (towards 'loss of marriage prospects and amenities of life') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards 'medical expenses'), totalling to Rs.30,60,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

25% disability -- Medical Bill – Requirement of – Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 -- Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards disability is sufficient -- As regards medical expenses, no bill has been placed on record -- Yet considering the fact that she has got 25% disability to the whole body, it cannot be said no expense on medical bills, transportation and special diet would have been incurred -- Insurance Company is not in a position to deny this but states that in the absence of any evidence it would not be appropriate for the Court to award any amount -- Keeping in view the nature of injuries, Rs.30,000/- granted for medical expenses, for transportation and for special diet

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.03.2016

Comprehensive policy – Driver dashed against a culvert -- Claimant income was more than Rs.8,000/- per month and he could not have maintained the petition under Section 163-A – High Court take it that the petition is filed under a wrong premise, for, as far as the passenger is concerned, the accident speaks of the negligence of the driver in a typical res ipsa loquitur situation -- Negligence of the driver is writ large and the passenger ought to have been provided for injuries suffered in the accident – High Court treat it as a petition u/s 166 of the Act and allow for the retention of the award against the insurer.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability – Salary of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/- p.m. -- Annual income of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/-x12 = Rs.50,400/ -- 30% added towards future prospects Rs.50,400/- + 30% = Rs.65,520/- -- Applying multiplier of 15, compensation amounted to Rs.9,82,800/- -- Compensation for future treatment as Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings as Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and medical treatment as Rs.3,01,320/- awarded -- Total compensation awarded as Rs.17,84,120/- -- Enhanced amount of Compensation is (Rs.17,84,120/-)-(Rs.5,31,440/-) = Rs.12,52,680/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,52,680/- shall be payable within a period of two months -- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Permanent disability -- Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – Salary assessed as Rs.10000 per month, Annual Salary came to be Rs.1,20,000/- -- 50% added towards Future Prospects (23 years of age) 120000 + 50% = Rs.1,80,000/- -- Disability 75% Rs.180000 X 75% = Rs.1,35,000/- -- After applying multiplier of 18 compensation came out to be 135000 X 18 = 24,30,000/-, for future treatment Rs.2,00,000/-, pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- and Medical treatment Rs.6,58,507/- awarded -- Total compensation awarded Rs.35,88,507/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 35,88,507 - 6,78,507 = Rs.29,10,000/-Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Appellant was unmarried at the time of accident – Appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account medical expenses as undoubtedly no expense was incurred, treatment having been afforded by the Navy itself – Appellant become unfit for Sea Service but fit for Shore Service with restrictions held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- detail of which is as follows : Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs.1,00,000/- -- Loss of marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- -- Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- -- Disability on account of amputation of toes Rs.50,000/- -- Grand Total = Rs.3,50,000/- -- Claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- After considering 50% enhancement for future prospects, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated at (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1750/-) x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/- -- Rs. 73,500 for loss of earning (Rs. 3,500/- X 21 months) since the appellant was unable to work for 21 months from the date of the accident till the filing of the claim petition -- Rs.1,50,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident -- Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper – Rs. 500/- for damages to clothing, Rs. 22,400/- for expense for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander allowed – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Personal accident claim – Accident by borrower/brother of owner of vehicle -- Accident had not taken place with the involvement of any other vehicle but because a cow had come in front of motorcycle all of a sudden and in order to save the cow he lost his balance and fell on the road and sustained injuries -- Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Poultry labourer – Injury with 25% disability -- Claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month -- Considering the nature of occupation of the claimant and the 25% disability, lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings, on account of permanent disability, Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3) is awarded for the loss of earning during the period of treatment -- Considering the nature of treatment and the medical bills, for which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport charges and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities – Total compensation of Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Injury to Doctor with 60 % disability – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering the fact that 60% permanent disability and over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent -- Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -- Rs. 2,14,848/- for loss of salary during treatment in the year 2001-2002 -- Rs. 66,566/- for expenditure incurred in one Hospital and Rs. 20,000/- for expenditure incurred in second Hospital -- Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and sufferings -- Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment -- Rs. 28,500/- as special diet charges -- Grand Total: Rs.34,99,914/- rounded off 35,00,000/- -- Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- will be along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

55% disability of driver – Not able to work as driver – Future loss of income – Assessment of -- Monthly income Rs.4500/- -- Due to this injury, doctor opined that appellant has suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same – Appellant was present in person in the High Court and right hand of the appellant was found to be completely crushed and deformed -- When it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss since he will never be able to work as a driver again -- Contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability -- Applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.’s case (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 X 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Amicus Curiae -- When this matter was listed, neither the counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant was present on a number of dates of hearing despite granting several opportunities to him -- Keeping in view Article 39A of the Constitution of India, amicus curiae was appointed on behalf of the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Tribunal and the High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 7% p.a. and 8% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. -- Interest @9% p.a. is awarded on the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Delay in compensation – Claim of the appellant has been pending for several years before the courts, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards costs incurred during pendency of the appeal.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Injured was Driver with 55% disability – Compensation awarded: Rs.8,64,000/- for loss of future income due to disability -- Rs.76,500/- for loss of income during period of treatment -- Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering -- Rs.2,00,000/- for Medical Expenses -- Rs.40,000/- as attendant charges during the period of treatment for 17 months -- Rs.20,000/- as transportation charges during the period of treatment -- Rs.20,000/- for Special diet and nutrition as advised by the doctor during the period of treatment -- Rs.1,50,000/- for Permanent Disability/loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life -- Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses – Rs.40,000/- for expenses during pendency of appeal – Total compensation amounting to Rs.17,60,500/- -- Interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Pain and suffering – While granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on and that will persist in future also, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- granted towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life, as he is not in a position to move freely, additionally Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Medical expenses -- Future medical expenses -- Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred during medical treatment of the appellant – In view of his medical condition and future medical needs and requirements, further Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards future medical treatment & incidental expenses by applying the legal principles laid down in Nagappa’s case (2003) 2 SCC 274 – Amount of Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant expenses (17 months) and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation also awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Minimum wages method -- As per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs.128/- per day -- Wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income -- It would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant’s daily wage at Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month -- Loss of income during the course of his treatment is awarded as Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Applicant has suffered 65% disability – Total compensation of Rs.5,82,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- on account of loss of income caused by disability, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for special diet, Rs.30,000/- for attendant, Rs.20,000/- on account of transportation expenses, Rs.60,000/- for loss of income, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment of life and Rs.15,000/- for future treatment awarded by the Tribunal – Applicant received multiple injuries on various parts of his body including head, he remained admitted in the Hospital -- On his treatment, an amount of Rs.2,36,993/- was spent by the applicant -- Compensation awarded by the leaned Tribunal cannot be said to exaggerated or on the higher side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Permanent disability -- Assessment of – Future income – Pain and suffering -- Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Shortening of leg by 1 inch -- Appellant owns 30 bighas of irrigated land in which he was doing agricultural work – Appellant notional income must be at least Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum -- His loss of future income due to 30% permanent disability suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in this accident, taking the appropriate multiplier of 15 would be Rs.2,70,000/- (15 X [30% of 60,000/-]) – Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability/ loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) for attendant and Rs.5,000/- for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Compensation should be reasonably sufficient so that it equips the victim to return to their normal life to the maximum possible extent.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Income of minor -- Injury to minor in motor vehicle accident – Compensation -- A child’s notional income cannot be ascertained as per the figure given for a non-earning individuals in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Injury to minor in motor vehicle accident – Compensation -- Shortening of leg by 1 inch of two minors with 30% / 20% permanent disability -- Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- each towards permanent disability of the minors, Rs.25,000/- each to parents of minors towards agony of parents, Rs.25,000/- each for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each for special diet and nutrition, Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 months) each for attendant and Rs.5,000/- each for transportation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Expiry of driving license – 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 -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Victims’ appeal – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Insured vehicle -- Plying under an agreement with the Corporation – 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 -- Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Passengers beyond seating capacity of vehicle – Effect of -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Agreement between Transport Corporation and owner of Bus regarding liability on account of accident – Effect of – Held, it is only between the Corporation and the bus owner and does not bind anybody who is not privy to the aforesaid agreement, least of all, the victim -- Sum awarded by the MACT will be payable only by the Insurance Company with interest.

(SC) Decided on: 08.06.2020

Package/comprehensive policy -- Vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of policy conditions – Insurance Company’s liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- As per the policy, vehicle was insured for own damage as well as third party – Held, the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation to the claimants -- At the same time, since the insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company shall be entitle to have right of recovery against the insured after payment of compensation to the claimants. Balakrishnan’s case 2013 ACJ 199 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Comprehensive policy -- Deceased was driving motorcycle – Claim petition against owner of motorcycle / Insurance company – Held, the instant policy being a comprehensive policy, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2019

Gratuitous Passengers in Goods Vehicle – Claimants are young children who have suffered permanent disability -- Principle of “pay and recover” should be invoked – Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2019

Third party Policy -- Pillion rider – Gratuitous passenger – Prayer that the deceased being a gratuitous passenger riding pillion on the motor-cycle, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation at all, dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Even assuming that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation, as the offending tractor was duly insured, the insurer would be still liable to pay the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. National Insurance Co.’s case 2004 (3) SCC 297 relied.

(SC) Decided on : 28.03.2018

Driving license – Authorization to drive -- Onus of proof – Owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having valid driving licence -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle -- To subserve the ends of justice, the insurer shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Third party liability -- Act only policy -- Comprehensive/Package policy -- Attempt of the insurance companies to avoid statutory liability by creating artificial distinction of Comprehensive/Package policy and the alleged 'Act only policy' does not stand legal scrutiny under the provisions of the New Act -- Qua the claim for damages to third party liability; every policy has to be taken as 'Act Policy' only, since it is mandatory to be issued by the Insurance Company and it is mandatory to be obtained by the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act -- In that sense every policy, qua third party, can be said to be and has to be only an 'Act Policy' -- Classification created by the insurance company cannot be made a ground by it for avoiding liability arising from an insured vehicle, qua the damages to the third party, including passengers in private passenger car/pillion rider on a Motor Cycle -- IRDA does not have any authority to prescribe extra and separate amount even to cover the third party risk because that would tantamount to violation and dilution of the scope of compulsory Insurance prescribed under Section 147(1)(b)(i).

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.11.2017

Geographical binding -- Insurance policy is attached to the 'vehicle' in question and not to Geographical expense of the area of operation of the vehicle in question -- Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation only on the ground that the vehicle was used in any particular city, state or a particular geographical area -- Insurance Company cannot even avoid its liability qua third party, on the ground that it can charge extra premium to cover any particular geographical area and that the insured has not paid that extra premium to cover that particular geographical area.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.11.2017

Compensation to employee – Transfer of vehicle – Intimation to Insurance company – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Principle of “pay and recover” -- Victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" – Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. Saju P. Paul’s case (2013) 2 SCC 41 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Gratuitous passengers – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Plea of gratuitous passengers has been raised for the first time before High Court in appeal, which cannot be allowed -- If a plea is not taken and a point for consideration is not specifically framed whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, it cannot be urged for the first time in appeal -- Thus, it can be safely concluded that the insurance company cannot plead for exclusion of liability and cannot deny indemnity to insured on the ground of violation of terms of policy. Bachhi Bai’s case 2011 ACJ 2475 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Gratuitous passengers – Third party risk – Whether the gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle would fall within the meaning of 'third party' and thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act – Held, object and purpose of Sections 146 and 147 are that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act – Admittedly, passengers were authorized representatives of the owner on the offending vehicle and thus covered under the policy of insurance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Discharge against medical advice – Death of – A decision to get discharged even against medical advice at the terminal stage of life shall not be likened to an invitation to be assisted suicide -- It is embracing dignity in death – It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment -- A right not to get treated is just as well a significant right to a patient as a right to be treated -- A dilemma that a court might face, when approached whether the patient shall be allowed to die by withdrawal of life support is quite different from a patient expressing desire not to be treated -- In the former, it is broaching issue of passive euthanasia and in the latter, it is an issue of patient autonomy -- Former grapples with legal uncertainty and still debatable, however in the latter, there is no ambiguity; it is beyond debate – Ultimate decision making the insurer liable is therefore inevitable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2016

Accident with stationary vehicle – Stationary vehicle – Onus of proof -- In the stationary vehicle parked in any public place a duly licensed driver should be in the driver seat, unless the mechanism of the vehicle has been stopped and brakes have been applied – Onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy – So, it was for the Insurance Company to establish that the mechanism of the vehicle was operating though it was stationary when the accident took place, but no such evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company -- Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Loss of cover-note by Insurance company – Proof of -- Insurance Company is disputing its liability on the plea that cover note was never issued by it and the same was lost -- So, it was incumbent upon the appellant-Insurance Company to establish the loss of cover note -- Insurance Company has not been able to establish the loss of the cover note in question -- Appellant-Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Driver of offending vehicle – Contention that Driving Licence placed on record by the owner is of one Mahesh whereas, driver of offending vehicle is Bablu -- It is the specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that Mahesh and Bablu are one and the same person -- Driving Licence bears the photograph of the said respondent -- Father's name of Mahesh is duly mentioned as Ram Sarup in the Driving Licence -- Claim petition clearly mentioned the driver's father to be Ram Sarup -- Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed in FIR duly mentioned the accused as Bablu @ Mahesh son of Ram Sarup -- Insurance Company has not brought on record any evidence to negate the abovesaid -- No benefit can accrue to the Insurance Company on this count.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Package policy – Pillion rider -- Package policy that provided the insurance cover to the representatives of the deceased pillion rider, the liability of the insurer is inescapable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Onus is on Insurance company to call insured -- If the claimants were trying to place on record the evidence to say that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of the driver, the insurer to place best possible evidence -- Insured was not a stranger to the insurer -- Motor Vehicles Act enables the insurer to secure details of the accident from the insured u/s 133 and it would be perfectly competent for the insurer to secure the presence of the insured to give evidence that could have suited the insurer's purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Route permit -- Violation of -- Violation of all terms and conditions mentioned in the permit does not allow the Insurance Company to avoid its liability -- Tribunal ought to have provided full right of indemnity to the owner and driver under the contract of insurance –Insurance Company shall take full liability to pay the entire compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Ownership of vehicle – Lease of vehicle to Transport undertaking – Intimation not given to Insurance Company -- Transport undertaking can also be treated as owner for the purposes of Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- Insurer cannot escape the liability to indemnify as in the case of hiring of vehicle intimation is not required to be given, it is only in the case of complete transfer of the vehicle an intimation has to be given by the transferee for effecting necessary changes in the policy -- Even otherwise, that would be a ministerial act and the insurer cannot escape the liability for that reason.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Registered owner – Bus given on hire to Public Transport – Policy of insurance is contractual obligation between the insured and the insurer -- It has not been shown that owner could not have given bus on hire as per any provision of policy – In the absence of any stipulation prohibiting such an arrangement in the insurance policy, in view of agreement of lease, the Registered owner and insurer cannot also escape from the liability -- More so, in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the Act of 1988, the insurer cannot escape the liability.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Transfer of vehicle by hire/lease/sale -- Deemed transfer of policy – Certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer -- Even if there is a transfer of the vehicle by sale, the insurer cannot escape the liability as there is deemed transfer of the certificate of insurance -- Hire purchase agreement, an agreement for lease or an agreement for hypothecation are covered under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- A person in possession is considered to be an owner of the vehicle under such agreements -- Held, an agreement for lease on hire cannot be said to be contract envisaged for exclusion under contractual liability in second proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

No fault liability – Liability of Insurance Company with recovery rights -- In case of death in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation for liability without fault -- It has been made Rs.50,000/- by Amending Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 from Rs.25,000/- -- Accident occurred earlier to 1994 i.e. on 23.6.1991 – Rs.25,000/- is liable to be granted to the appellants -- Though the liability of the Insurance Company as per its policy is limited to Rs.20,000/-, however, it is liable to pay the entire amount and recover the excess amount from the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Personal accident claim – Accident by borrower/brother of owner of vehicle -- Accident had not taken place with the involvement of any other vehicle but because a cow had come in front of motorcycle all of a sudden and in order to save the cow he lost his balance and fell on the road and sustained injuries -- Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Deceased was sitting on mudguard of Tractor -- Insurance Company is not liable for the claim on account of death of person, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and died -- Tractor is meant only for one person i.e. driver.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2015

Death of passenger -- Claim petition – Negligence – Proof of -- An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Death of passenger -- Claim petition – Negligence of Driver – Proof of -- Minimal requirement is that the death or injury is by the use of a motor vehicle – Death that as resulted is a typical illustration of a res ipsa loquitur situation and no further proof for negligence is necessary than merely statement of fact of death or injury -- This is not a claim by the driver or owner of the vehicle, which alone would be barred -- The claim is by a passenger in a case where there is a comprehensive insurance cover for risk to a passenger -- Owner of the vehicle held to be liable the same way as the driver is and this shall be channelled to the liability of the insurer as a person who is bound to indemnify the insured.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle – Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the award primarily on the quantum of compensation liable to be dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Duty of owner -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – An owner of a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally obligated to get the vehicle insured -- Rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Liability of insurance company -- Ld. Single Judge while directing the Insurance Company to make good the loss suffered by the insured/respondent No. 1 granted liberty to claim the amount from the financier -- Rule does not provide that the policy can be cancelled on a request made by the financier of the vehicle -- Nothing on record to suggest that any request was made by the insured to cancel the policy -- Rule further provides that the policy can be cancelled after ensuring that the vehicle is insured elsewhere, at least for Liability Only cover -- Insurance Company had not verified that the vehicle in question has been insured with any other Company and the policy was cancelled only on the request of the financier – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.01.2018

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 -- Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Proceedings for 22 years -- Compensation with 12% interest p.a. -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998 -- Since dependents have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since past 22 years, interest @ 12% p.a. awarded from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment awarded on compensation of Rs.14,25,600/-.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Interest @ 6% p.a. awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Income @ Rs.10,000/- p.m assessed for the deceased 34 years old professional driver -- Benefit of 6% interest granted, which cannot be said to be on the higher side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

Injury case -- Amputation of left leg at the age of 29 years -- Appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2017

Injury to Doctor with 60% disability -- Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- will be along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

Death of student -- Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class – Total compensation and additional amount payable with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased aged 35 years -- Interest @ 7.5% p.a. awarded from date of filing the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Deceased 17 years old – Total compensation comes to Rs.10,37,000/- -- Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,25,400/- will carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.02.2018

Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force – Enhanced amount of compensation shall fetch interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Age of the deceased was 45 years and he was an employee in the Government Press -- Grant of rate of interest of 7.5% cannot be held to be excessive.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Deceased was 39 years -- Claimants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the amount is realised.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Deceased was an agriculturist and was managing his agricultural land himself -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased-lady was a household lady aged about 45 years – Accident dated 10.12.1998 -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal till realization allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

Deceased was 29 year old as per the postmortem report -- Claimant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realization @ 7.5% per annum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Death case of 1997 -- Income of deceased in the year 1997 taken as Rs.3000/- per month -- Claimant shall be held entitle to claim interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its payment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2015

Deceased was Bachelor -- Total compensation assessed as Rs.18,36,000/- alongwith 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 15.05.2015

Compensation order to be given with 8% interest from the date of filing claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm -- Uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum granted from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 06.11.2017

Accident occurred on 1.2.1993 – Deceased aged 11 years -- Enhanced amount should be paid along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.03.2016

Deceased was 34 years old – Appellants are held entitled to interest @ 8.5%, as per the Tribunal’s award, on the entire amount of compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Challenge by insurance company -- Interference in – Simple Interest on awarded amount @ 9% given by the Tribunal – High Court found no ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Permanent disability -- Victim in Coma -- 9% interest from the date of filing claim petition u/s 166 also awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

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.

(SC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Age of the injured/appellant was 23 years -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 27.07.2020

Deceased was 23 years of age and his parents were in the age group of 40 to 45 years – Rate of interest modified to 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunal and High Court.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Deceased aged 42 years -- The total compensation is quantified at Rs 27,66,522 on which the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on : 02.02.2018

Bachelor deceased 29 years old, in 2006 -- Total compensation computed at Rs 61,90,000/- -- Aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Delay in preferring revision – Interest thereupon -- Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum awarded from the date of filing claim before MACT, however a period of two years shall be excluded which is to be attributed to the appellants in preferring the revision application before the High Court.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2017

Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability – Total compensation awarded as Rs.17,84,120/- -- Enhanced amount of Compensation is (Rs.17,84,120/-)-(Rs.5,31,440/-) = Rs.12,52,680/- -- Enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,52,680/- shall be payable within a period of two months -- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he was awarded compensation with respect to the bills only – Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 35,88,507 - 6,78,507 = Rs.29,10,000/-Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Deceased was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering and was a brilliant student -- Enhanced amount shall be payable within a period of forty five days and shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Poultry labourer – Injury with 25% disability -- Total compensation of Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Injured was Driver with 55% disability -- Interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Tribunal and the High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 7% p.a. and 8% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. -- Interest @9% p.a. is awarded on the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Accident of 1990 – Deceased was aged about 22 years -- The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,47,000/- alongwith 9% interest p.a.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Applicant has suffered 65% disability – Total compensation of Rs.5,82,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal -- Compensation awarded by the leaned Tribunal cannot be said to exaggerated or on the higher side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -- Courts below have erred in not granting the interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. – Total compensation payable to the appellants will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased was 33 years old -- Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation -- Appellants are held to be entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 13.01.2015

Deceased was 25 years of age and was a matriculate, working as a driver with a valid license for driving heavy motor vehicles -- Total compensation is payable alongwith 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2014

Interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the payment was awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree -- Total compensation of Rs.27,25,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 25.09.2014

Injury in motor vehicle accident – Compensation alongwith 9% interest awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Courts below have erred in awarding only 6% interest p.a. on the compensation awarded instead of 9% p.a. – @ 9% interest awarded on compensation from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 28.08.2014

Entitlement of -- Delay of 1736 days in appeal -- Claimant will not be entitle to interest for delay period of 1736 days in preferring the present appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.04.2016

'Employment injury' given by the Act shows that the injury shall be deemed to be an 'employment injury' only if it is caused by an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment of insured, if he is in an insurable employment – Injury would be an 'employment injury' only if he sustains such injury as an employee under this Act -- If the injury sustained by the injured or the death of the insured occurs outside the scope of the employment; the same cannot be considered to be an 'employment injury'.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Compensation to employee – Liability of Insurance company -- Transfer of vehicle – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2017

Ownership of vehicle – Lease of vehicle to Transport undertaking – Insurer’s liability -- Transport undertaking can also be treated as owner for the purposes of Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- Insurer cannot escape the liability to indemnify as in the case of hiring of vehicle intimation is not required to be given, it is only in the case of complete transfer of the vehicle an intimation has to be given by the transferee for effecting necessary changes in the policy -- Even otherwise, that would be a ministerial act and the insurer cannot escape the liability for that reason.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Breach of policy – Onus of proof – Recovery right -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Recovery right to Insurance company -- Owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence – Driver’s license was proved to be invalid -- Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Reliance upon -- Insurance Company’s liability -- Contention that Driving Licence placed on record by the owner is of one Mahesh whereas, driver of offending vehicle is Bablu -- It is the specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that Mahesh and Bablu are one and the same person -- Driving Licence bears the photograph of the said respondent -- Father's name of Mahesh is duly mentioned as Ram Sarup in the Driving Licence -- Claim petition clearly mentioned the driver's father to be Ram Sarup -- Challan/report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed in FIR duly mentioned the accused as Bablu @ Mahesh son of Ram Sarup -- Insurance Company has not brought on record any evidence to negate the abovesaid -- No benefit can accrue to the Insurance Company on this count.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Value of -- Claim petition in Motor Vehicle Accident case – Report of Investigator of the Insurance Company is of no value, especially, in view of the fact that after the investigation in the FIR, challan was presented against driver and the trial was going on at that time.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Filing of charge-sheet -- Proof of accident -- Copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and the charge framed by the Court is available on record, which shows that respondent-driver has been charge sheeted for causing the injuries while driving the tractor in question in a rash and negligent manner – Charge-sheet establishes that pillion rider has also suffered the injuries in this very accident – Driver of the tractor has stepped into the witness box and admitted that he is facing the trial in the criminal Court for causing this accident -- He also admitted that on the date of the accident he was driving the tractor -- He has simply denied the accident and deposed that no accident has taken place with his tractor -- Bald statement of respondent-driver cannot rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the claimants on the mode of negligence and involvement of the vehicle.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Claim petition dismissed against driver -- Liability of owner – Liability is always joint and several and if the dismissal of the claim against the driver was not on merits, but was for failure to take steps to serve him – Employer / owner of the vehicle cannot avail the benefit of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Composite negligence – Claimant’s right to recover compensation – (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Place of residence -- No bar in filing a claim petition where the claimants reside at the time of filing of the petition -- Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and the provision in question is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents due to negligent driving -- Hyper-technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2020

Permanent disability – 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’.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

Less compensation claimed – Court can award more than claimed – Held, there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount -- A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record -- It cannot become time barred -- Courts are duty bound to award just compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Concept of -- “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants -- Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance with the Act -- The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude -- The Courts must interpret the word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependents of the deceased -- One must also remember that compensation can be paid only once and not time and again.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

EFB Scheme Monthly Payment – Deduction of – Future prospects -- Amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased for a period of about 7 years – This payment will cease thereafter – Since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects – This would be ‘just’ compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Other pecuniary benefits outcome or result of death – Deduction not permissible -- Law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased -- Claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident -- Advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation -- Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant – In exercise of power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Interference at Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme court -- When under one head, reasonable amount has been awarded and under another head, nothing has been awarded though it should have been so awarded and at the same time, eventual figure of the award of compensation payable to the claimants appears to be just and reasonable then in such eventuality, Supreme Court do not consider it proper to interfere in such award in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 23.01.2017

Financial assistance to family of deceased employee – Deduction of -- Harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the Rules of 2006 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to “pay and other allowances” that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course -- This is not to say that the amount or payment receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules, is the total entitlement under the head of “loss of income” -- So far as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and other benefits, if the deceased Government employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by them in their claim under the Act of 1988 -- Similarly, other benefits extended to the dependents of the deceased Government employee in terms of sub-rule (2) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension, Life Insurance, Provident Fund etc., that must remain unaffected and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would be paid to the dependents of the deceased Government employee.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2016

Future prospects -- Concept of future prospects envisages chances or opportunities for success and further progress in life which is a normal course of event for every human being involved in any avocation -- Even if, keeping in view his ability, capacity etc., one may not be in a position to rise in life, there is another aspect that justifies the grant of addition in the income of the deceased, which is the 'inflationary trend' in which we all are living -- Amount of compensation is required to be just and reasonable keeping the inflationary trend in view, where the prices of the basic amenities of life are likely to increase further – Award of 50% towards future prospects, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Power of Tribunal to award excess than claimed -- Function of the Tribunal is to award just and fair compensation -- If the amount of just and fair compensation exceeds the amount claimed in the claim petition, even that can be granted -- Claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.42,95,840/- as compensation, though in the claim petition compensation has been claimed to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

Minimum wages method -- As per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs.128/- per day -- Wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income -- It would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant’s daily wage at Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month -- Loss of income during the course of his treatment is awarded as Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Enhancement of compensation without appeal – Power of -- Against Tribunal award, the claimants have not filed any appeal -- Whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced – Held, in terms of Section 168 of the Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards -- Even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 03.02.2015

Fake driving licence – Duty of owner – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- License of Light Motor Vehicle – Driver had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle – No breach of any condition of insurance policy, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2014

Assessment of income -- Claim of earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. while working as a 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Ownership of vehicle – Intimation not given to Insurance Company -- Insurer’s liability -- Transport undertaking can also be treated as owner for the purposes of Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 -- Insurer cannot escape the liability to indemnify as in the case of hiring of vehicle intimation is not required to be given, it is only in the case of complete transfer of the vehicle an intimation has to be given by the transferee for effecting necessary changes in the policy -- Even otherwise, that would be a ministerial act and the insurer cannot escape the liability for that reason.

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2015

Just compensation – Court can award more than claimed – Held, there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount -- A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record -- It cannot become time barred -- Courts are duty bound to award just compensation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Fake license – Renewal of –Whether the employer/owner has taken proper precautions before employing driver to drive school mini bus -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fake driving license -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Composite negligence – Claimant’s right to recover compensation – (i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

(SC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Fake licence of driver -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Expiry of driving license – Non-renewal of – Injury to driver -- 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 -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Sale of vehicle – Appellant has led sufficient evidence on record, which shows that the vehicle in question was indeed sold to the respondent no.7 -- Contents of the affidavit Ex.R-2 are not denied and neither is it denied that the offending vehicle was taken on Superdari by respondent no.7 – Appellant-registered owner has been rightly held liable to pay the compensation, however appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the respondent no. 7 after satisfying the claim.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2020

Claim petition dismissed against driver -- Liability is always joint and several and if the dismissal of the claim against the driver was not on merits, but was for failure to take steps to serve him, employer / owner of the vehicle cannot avail the benefit of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Death of passenger -- Claim petition – Negligence – Proof of -- An act of a driver dashing against a tree must mean that there had been a negligent act only on the part of the driver -- Instance where a driver could plead exoneration of such a responsibility shall be when there is a mechanical failure but there again the liability of the owner would still be exposed -- A vehicle is bound to be kept in a state of repair and if there was a mechanical defect that resulted in accident, it should still be seen as want of care by the owner that would make him liable and consequently, the insurer is liable for any claim arising out of the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2014

Accident by Bus – Mechanical defect -- Negligence of -- A bare perusal of the FIR substantiates the plea of the claimants and not of the driver – Driver has not pleaded in reply that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a sudden, and has also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a stationary tractor -- Thus the version of the driver is not reliable -- Mechanic has categorically stated that the belt of springs could have been broken in case brakes were suddenly applied -- Thus it appears that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and initially dashed the stationary tractor and then a eucalyptus tree -- In the circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver -- Apart from that merely a mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its liability in the absence of evidence being adduced that the vehicle was maintained properly.

(SC) Decided on: 15.12.2015

Accident by financed vehicle – Hire purchase agreement – Borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place – Person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner -- High Court has erroneously opined that the financer had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it -- Nothing on record that this fact was known to the financer or it was done in collusion with the financer – Liability could not have mulcted on the financer.

(SC) Decided on: 01.12.2014

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Adverse inference -- According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Duty of owner – L.M.V. licence – Meaning of -- Owner pleaded that she had checked the driving licence of the driver and along with her husband took the test of his driving skills, which were found to be perfectly upto the mark -- However, there is nothing on record beyond the statement in this regard -- There is nothing on record to suggest that the owner had taken any steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle -- From the testimony of official of the said authority and from the record on file, it is duly proved that the licence in question is a fake document – Licence in question is valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and as per the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle as mentioned in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the weight of the vehicle which comes under the ambit of light motor vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgs, but in this case, the weight of the offending vehicle is 8800 kgs. – No fault can be found with the approach of learned Tribunal while granting recovery rights to the insurance company.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2016

Legality of -- Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Liability of Employer -- Whether the employer/owner has taken proper precautions before employing driver to drive school mini bus -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Renewal of fake licence – Liability of Employer -- It is in the statement of Driver himself and witness of School Authority that before appointment, driving licence of Driver was checked and also the driving test was taken -- If the employer has taken the reasonable precautions, then, in no way, it can be held that owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy -- Owner is not supposed to get the verification from DTO/RTO office regarding the original driving licence – Burdon is on insurer to establish breach of policy – Held, reasonable care was taken by employer, there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Renewal of fake licence – Original driving licence was fake, however, the endorsement from 1999 to 2011 are correct -- If the original driving licence is fake, then its renewals cannot be held as legal -- The licence will remain forged.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Recovery rights to Insurance Company -- Driver had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle – No breach of any condition of insurance policy, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2014

Deduction is not permissible -- Deceased paid premium on life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death -- Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc. -- Tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 12.10.2018

Claim petition in motor vehicle accident case – Delay of 28 years – A claim raised before the M.A.C.T., can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim -- It is not as if, it can be open to all and sundry, to approach a the Tribunal, to raise a claim for compensation, at any juncture, after the accident had taken place -- Individual concerned, must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time -- Question of reasonability would naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case -- Delay of 28 years, even without reference to any other fact, cannot be considered as a prima facie reasonable period -- Only justification indicated for initiating proceedings after a lapse of 28 years, that they are poor person and they have no knowledge about the Law and they has not been paid the single pie towards any compensation – Explanation tendered, cannot be accepted -- Instant case, was stale, and ought to have been treated as a dead claim.

(SC) Decided on: 09.02.2017

Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Assessment of notional income –Proceedings for 22 years -- Compensation with 12% interest p.a. -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998 – He was evidently doing fairly well, by taking an increment of 10% per annum from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the deceased could be fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m., which can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. -- Income of the deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 = Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. -- 50% of the income of the deceased deducted towards personal expenses, since he was living in a foreign country – Future prospects @30% and multiplier of 15 given -- For loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000, Loss of Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000, Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 and Funeral Expenses, Rs. 15,000/- awarded – Total compensation to be paid comes to be Rs. 39,65,125/- -- After deducting for 50% contributory negligence amount payable comes to Rs.19,82,563/- -- Since dependents have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since past 22 years, interest @ 12% p.a. awarded from the date of filing the claim petition, till realisation.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Permanent disability -- 50% disability assessed at Tribunal stage -- 100% assessed at High Court stage – Victim in Coma – Assessment of Rs.3500/- as monthly income affirmed -- Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Right leg of the appellant was amputated resulting in 80% permanent disability – Salary of claimant was assessed as Rs.4200/- p.m. -- Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2015

Permanent disability -- Appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% – Salary assessed as Rs.10,000 per month – For loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Appellant was unmarried at the time of accident – Appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account medical expenses as undoubtedly no expense was incurred, treatment having been afforded by the Navy itself – For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs.1,00,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning – Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- Rs.1,50,000/- awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident.

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Injury with 25% disability -- Claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month -- Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Injured was Driver with 55% disability – Compensation awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for Permanent Disability/loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

While granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on and that will persist in future also, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- granted towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life, as he is not in a position to move freely, additionally Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Applicant has suffered 65% disability -- Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment of life awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Shortening of leg by 1 inch -- Appellant owns 30 bighas of irrigated land in which he was doing agricultural work – Appellant notional income must be at least Rs.5,000/- per month – Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability/ loss of amenities awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2014

Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm -- Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 06.11.2017

Deceased was 29 year old as per the postmortem report -- Minor daughters will be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care, guidance, love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Claimant held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father totaling Rs. 1,20,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2022

Consortium to parents – Consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- each granted.

(SC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Deceased 34 years old was a professional driver -- Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

45 years old deceased -- Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium was granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2020

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.

(SC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998 – For loss of Spouse Consortium Rs. 40,000, Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – Compensation on account of loss of consortium, declined as the same is available only to the spouse.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependents – Under the conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- (Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- + Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- + Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-) awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife.

(SC) Decided on: 12.06.2020

Deceased, self-employed person aged 37 years -- Under 'conventional heads', Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium (including filial consortium) awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

An amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium to father and sister each granted.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Deceased aged 42 years -- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 awarded.

(SC) Decided on : 02.02.2018

Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force – On account of loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased was having a license of vegetable vendor -- Claimant is held to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 22.11.2017

For loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Insurance Company is disputing its liability on the plea that cover note was never issued by it and the same was lost -- So, it was incumbent upon the appellant-Insurance Company to establish the loss of cover note -- Insurance Company has not been able to establish the loss of the cover note in question -- Appellant-Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

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/-,

(SC) Decided on: 27.10.2021

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 – Hence, 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/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

Permanent disability of whole body, 31.1% -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 27.07.2020

Whole body disability -- Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work and unable to walk without the aid of crutches -- Her whole body disability was medically assessed at 32% -- Tribunal, by hairsplitting the expert evidence assessed the whole body disability at 15% -- High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20% -- Held, appellant is entitled to loss of future earning on basis of the whole body disability of 32% as opined.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Amputation of leg -- Physical Functional disability – Consideration of -- Physical functional disability of the left leg was assessed at 75% and total body disability at 37.5% -- Earning capacity of the appellant as on the date of the accident stands completely negated and not reduced – It is difficult to comprehend the grant of compensation to him in ratio to the disability to the whole body -- Appellant is held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability.

(SC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Income Tax Return – Reliance upon -- Loss of taxable earning should be reckoned for the purpose of determining just compensation -- Computation of taxable income as disclosed by the appellant in his tax return was annual taxable income was Rs.77,480/- (rounded off) and income tax due thereon was Rs.4,496/- -- After providing deduction of the income tax payable by the appellant, the amount towards the head ‘loss of income’ of the appellant would be Rs.72,984/-. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.(2008) 2 SCC 763 relied.

(SC) Decided on : 09.02.2018

Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm -- Appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life alongwith uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 06.11.2017

In case of permanent disability, the compensation towards permanent disability as well as loss of earning capacity on account of said permanent disability have to be assessed independently – Determination of compensation for loss of earning capacity on the basis of multiplier method is proper -- In determination of compensation, some guess work and hypothetical considerations based on sympathy can be worked out, but ultimate determination has to be considered with some objective standards -- Endeavor should be to award just compensation keeping in view the sufferings of the injured person.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 was rightly applied, thereby making the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings -- Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in day to day expenditure in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Minor child injured with 100% injuries – Total compensation of Rs.30,60,000/- awarded under different heads -- Child aged 14 years left with mentally deranged and physically incapacitated to move and is bed ridden – Doctors on assessment have declare him 100% disabled -- For the said purpose, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is taken as notional income -- Multiplier of 18 is applied, claimant-appellant, is held entitled to the compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'loss of earning capacity') + Rs.10,80,000/- (towards 'attendant charges) + 1,00,000/- (towards 'pain and suffering') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards transportation) + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards special diet) + Rs.5,00,000/- (towards 'loss of marriage prospects and amenities of life') + Rs.1,00,000/- (towards 'medical expenses'), totalling to Rs.30,60,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Claimant-Driver is injured with 100% disability for earning -- Appellant aged 30 years was working as a professional driver – Minimum wages as per Government notification taken as Rs. 3500/- per month -- After considering 50% enhancement for future prospects, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated at (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1750/-) x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/- -- Rs. 73,500 for loss of earning (Rs. 3,500/- X 21 months) since the appellant was unable to work for 21 months from the date of the accident till the filing of the claim petition -- Rs.1,50,000/- for the pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life caused to the appellant due to the accident -- Appellant is in vegetative state of condition and will continue to be so in the future, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for expenses on extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, which would be just and proper – Rs. 500/- for damages to clothing, Rs. 22,400/- for expense for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for expense for bystander allowed – Amount will be payable with interest @ 9% p.a

(SC) Decided on: 28.07.2015

Injury with 25% disability -- Claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month -- Considering the nature of occupation of the claimant and the 25% disability, lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings, on account of permanent disability, Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3) is awarded for the loss of earning during the period of treatment -- Considering the nature of treatment and the medical bills, for which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport charges and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities – Total compensation of Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 24.02.2015

Injury to Doctor with 60 % disability – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 25,000/- -- By considering the fact that 60% permanent disability and over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent -- Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – (Rs.15,000 x 12 x 16) Rs. 28,80,000/- for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability -- Rs. 2,14,848/- for loss of salary during treatment in the year 2001-2002 -- Rs. 66,566/- for expenditure incurred in one Hospital and Rs. 20,000/- for expenditure incurred in second Hospital -- Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and sufferings -- Rs. 90,000/- as expenditure incurred on attendant for 9 months during treatment -- Rs. 28,500/- as special diet charges -- Grand Total: Rs.34,99,914/- rounded off 35,00,000/- -- Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- will be along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

(SC) Decided on: 20.02.2015

Minimum wages method -- As per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs.128/- per day -- Wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income -- It would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant’s daily wage at Rs.150/- per day i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month -- Loss of income during the course of his treatment is awarded as Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Injured was Driver with 55% disability – Compensation awarded: Rs.8,64,000/- for loss of future income due to disability -- Rs.76,500/- for loss of income during period of treatment -- Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering -- Rs.2,00,000/- for Medical Expenses -- Rs.40,000/- as attendant charges during the period of treatment for 17 months -- Rs.20,000/- as transportation charges during the period of treatment -- Rs.20,000/- for Special diet and nutrition as advised by the doctor during the period of treatment -- Rs.1,50,000/- for Permanent Disability/loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life -- Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses – Rs.40,000/- for expenses during pendency of appeal – Total compensation amounting to Rs.17,60,500/- -- Interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

(SC) Decided on: 18.02.2015

Applicant has suffered 65% disability – Total compensation of Rs.5,82,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- on account of loss of income caused by disability, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for special diet, Rs.30,000/- for attendant, Rs.20,000/- on account of transportation expenses, Rs.60,000/- for loss of income, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of enjoyment of life and Rs.15,000/- for future treatment awarded by the Tribunal – Applicant received multiple injuries on various parts of his body including head, he remained admitted in the Hospital -- On his treatment, an amount of Rs.2,36,993/- was spent by the applicant -- Compensation awarded by the leaned Tribunal cannot be said to exaggerated or on the higher side.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Permanent disability – Pain and suffering -- Assessment of -- Doctor assessed the permanent disability at 58% to the whole body -- Held, once Disability Certificate was accepted as credible and reliable, there was no reason to treat the 'functional disability' at 25% -- Appellant was working as Goundi i.e. at the building construction sites -- Such a work requires good health and extreme fitness as it is a strenuous task which involves lot of physical activities -- It has also come on record he suffers from general weakness and is not capable of doing heavy work -- He is even unable to walk and stand for a long time -- Functional disability is to be taken at 85% -- Loss of future income would work out to Rs.5,35,500/- (Rs.3,750/- x 85% x 12 x 14) -- Similarly, for pain and suffering amount increased to Rs.60,000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2014

Unmarried deceased aged 32 years at the time of his death -- Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Deceased 34 years old professional driver -- Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2020

Income of the 45 years old deceased was taken @ Rs.10,000/- per month -- Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2020

Deceased 40 years old – Widow and three minor children dependent -- Accident occurred on 18.11.1998 -- For loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000 awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased was 28 years of age and was bachelor – For loss of estate Rs.15,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.06.2020

Deceased aged 35 years – Five dependents – For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- awarded.

(SC) Decided on: 16.06.2020

Deceased was 15 years and about 7 months old and was a student of 9th class -- For loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- given.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.11.2019

Deceased, self-employed person aged 37 years -- Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.05.2019

Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation -- Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant – In exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and in the interests of justice, Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Father and Sister.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Deceased aged 42 years -- For loss of estate Rs. 15,000 awarded.

(SC) Decided on : 02.02.2018

Bachelor/Deceased was aged 20 years in 2008 and was pursuing C.A. -- Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate awarded.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased aged 57 years, employed in Indian Air Force – For loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Deceased aged 50+ was having a license of vegetable vendor -- Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 22.11.2017

Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.

(SC) Decided on: 31.10.2017

Deceased had four minor children and a widow -- Deceased was 39 years -- Funeral expenses and loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Injured boy aged 22 years got 50% permanent disability to the right arm -- Appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life alongwith uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till its realization.

(SC) Decided on: 06.11.2017

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Assessment of compensation -- Permanent disability to the tune of 12% -- Income of the injured was assessed to be Rs.4500/- per month -- Monthly loss to the income of the injured to the tune of 12% was assessed to be Rs.540/- i.e. Rs.6480/- per annum -- Multiplier of 17 was rightly applied, thereby making the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,160/- towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability -- Rs.2000/- per percentage of permanent disability has to be added, Rs.24,000/- (2000 X 12) -- Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings -- Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.64330/- towards medical expenses, whereas there are certain hidden expenses in day to day expenditure in the hospital and outside, an amount of Rs.75,000/- would suffice to serve the total expenses for the treatment of the injured -- A consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges -- An amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future enjoyment in life including matrimonial enjoyment granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

Injury to 10 year old child – 5% disability -- Claimant has suffered 5% permanent disability -- Claimant-appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- [Rs.90,000-(towards permanent disability) + Rs.15,000/- (towards pain and sufferings, special diet etc.) + Rs.25,000/- (towards loss of studies) + Rs.50,000 (towards loss of future).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

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’.

(SC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Rs. 5,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for loss of love and affection, future support granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2019

Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection warded by High Court, affirmed.

(SC) Decided on: 18.09.2018

Claimants are held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each (total Rs.6,00,000/-) towards loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2017

For love and affection Rs.50,000/- each to the minor children is granted totalling Rs.2 lakhs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2017

Minor son entitled of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Minor son shall also be entitled of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance -- Mother shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection of her son.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2016

Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimants for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2016

An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Appellant-claimant widow shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium -- Minor son and the widowed mother of the deceased shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-, each, towards loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Minor children of the deceased, shall also be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care and guidance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.04.2016

Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the son of the deceased for loss of love, care and guidance and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Rs. 1 lac for love and affection awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2016

Following the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar’s case (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the mother of the deceased for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2016

A sum of Rs. 1 lac is allowed to the minor children for loss of love, care and guidance to the children.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.03.2016

Mother of the deceased shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

Minor son of the deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of love, care and guidance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.02.2016

For loss of love and affection awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- for each parent) awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2015

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) awarded as compensation for loss of love and affection to parents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

An amount of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded for loss of love and affection for the claimants awarded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015

Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards love and affection to children.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2015