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 Ors1., Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors 2., U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Trilok Chandra and Ors.3, Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.5, Jyoti Kaul & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. 6, Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr.7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.8, were cited. 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:

(2.) WE are concerned with the above reference. Before we refer to the provisions contained in Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act, it is of some relevance to notice the background in which the Parliament considered it necessary to bring in the provisions of no fault liability on the statute. It so happened that in Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr.9 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the question whether the fact of injury resulting from the accident involving the use of a vehicle on the public road is the basis of a liability and that it is not necessary to prove any9 1977 (2) SCC 441 negligence on the part of the driver, held that the liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort and before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. This Court held that the concept of owner's liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner. This Court noticed a judgment of Madras High Court in M/s Ruby Insurance Co. v. Govindaraj, (A.A.O. Nos. 607 of 1973 and 296 of 1974) decided on December 13, 1976 wherein the necessity of having social insurance to provide cover for the claimants irrespective of proof of negligence to a limited extent was suggested. This Court said "unless these ideas are accepted by the legislature and embodied in appropriate enactments Courts are bound to administer and give effect to the law as it exists today. We conclude by stating that the view of the learned Judges of the High Court has no support in law and hold that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case".

(3.) IN Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another10, 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 .