RESHMA KUMARI Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A two-Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.) proceeded to hear these appeals on two common questions, namely, (1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act") should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospect. In the course of hearing few decisions of this Court, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors [1994 (2) SCC 176]., Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. [1996 (3) SCC 179]., U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Trilok Chandra and Ors. [1996 (4) SCC 362], Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [2001 (2) SCC 9], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [2002 (6) SCC 281], Jyoti Kaul & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. [2002 (6) SCC 306], Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr. [2003 (3) SCC 148], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. [2007 (10) SCC 1], were cited.

(2.) THE attention of the Bench was also invited to Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act. The Bench was of the opinion that the question, whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in a case falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act needed to be decided by a larger Bench. The reasons for referring the above issue to the larger Bench indicated in the referral order dated 23.07.2009 read as under:

(3.) IN Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another [1987 (3) SCC 234], a two-Judge Bench held that the compensation awardable under Section 92-A was without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person which was clearly a departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident. Certain observations made in Minu B. Mehta9 were held to be obiter in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai10 .