SANT SINGHversusSUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.

                     [2011] 3 S.C.R. 721

                        SANT SINGH                                 A
                               v.
               SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 2882 of 2011)

                       MARCH 4, 2011
                                                                   B
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

     ss. 163A and 166; Second Schedule - Claim petition            c
under s. 166 - Determination of compensation - Structured
formula as provided for under the Second Schedule including
the multiplier- Applicability of - Held: Even if a claim is made
under s. 166, the ptincip/es for determining compensation as
per s. 163A can be used as a guide - The Second Schedule           0
can be used as a reference for determining compensation in
a claim u/s. 166 - In the present case, the claimant-appellant
(who suffered multiple injuries on his leg in a motor accident)
was earning Rs.4,0001- p.m. which amounts to Rs.48,0001- per
year - After deduction of 1!3rd for personal expenses, his         E
annual income came to Rs. 32, 0001- - As per the Second
Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the appellant was
aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be applied and
accordingly, the appellant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.4, 16,0001- - Further amount of Rs.5,0001- awarded as
compensation for hospitalization, special diet, attendant and      F
transportation and Rs.22,2091- for cost incurred in purchase
of medicines - Thus, total compensation amounts to
Rs.4,43,2091-, which is rounded off to Rs.4,43,0001- -
Compensation to be paid to appellant alongwith interest @
9% by all the respondents jointly and severally.                   G
    The appellant-claimant was sitting as a pillion-rider
on a scooter, when the first respondent driving a four

                              721                                  H
    722      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A wheeler came from the other side in a rash and negligent
  manner and struck the scooter. The appellant fractured
  his left leg below the knee and both the bones of his right
  leg. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor
  Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor
B Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant was 48 years of age on
  the date of the accident and claimed to be working as a
  Work Munshi and earning Rs.4000/- p.m. Considering the
  injuries suffered and treatment received by the appellant,
  the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,47,209/
c - with interest@ 7.5%.. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed
  to the High Court for enhancement of compensation and
  interest. The High Court enhanced the compensation
  amount by an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Still dissatisfied with
  the compensation awarded by the High Court, the
  appellant filed the present appeal.
0
       The appellant contended that the Tribunal had
  completely failed to compensate him for loss of future
  earnings for which multiplier method was required to be
  applied as per the Second Schedule to s.163A of the
E Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and further that he was entitled
  to interest @ 9%.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD:1. Though the present claim is made under
F section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the principles
  for determining compensation as per Section 163A can
  be used as a guide. The Second Schedule can be used
  as a reference for determining compensation in a claim
  under Section 166 of the Act. [Para 11] [726-G-H; 727-A]
G
        United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. etc., v. Patricia Jean
    Mahajan and others etc. etc. AIR 2002 SC 2607; Smt. Supe
    Dei and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2002)
    ACJ 1166 (SC); Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
H
     SANT SINGH v. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.               723


 Geological Survey of India and another AIR 2003 SC 1817       A
 - relied on.

     Piara Singh & Ors. v. Satpal Kumar & Ors. Vol. CZCVl-
 2 (2007-2) PLR 143 (P&H) - referred to.

       2.1. Applications made under Section 166 of the Act     B
  are to be determined based on the principles !aid down
  in Section 168 of the Act, whereby, the Tribunal must
  award compensation that is just. Hence, in the present
  case, compensation should be awarded on the basis of
  the principles contained in the Second Schedule to the       C
  Act and thus, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not
  considering the same. The award of the High Court is
_ thus set aside. [Paras 12, 13) [727-B-D]

       2.2. The appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. which    o
 amounts to Rs.48,000/- per year. After deduction of 1/3rd
 for personal expenses, the annual income of the
 appellant would be Rs.32,000/-. As per the Second
 Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, as the appellant was
 aged 48 years, a multiplier of 13 is to be applied.           E
 Accordingly, appellant is entitled to compensation of
 Rs.4, 16,000/-. A further amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded
 as compensation for hospitalization, special diet,
 att!'!ndant and transportation and Rs.22,209/- for cost
 incurred in purchase of medicines. Thus, total
 compensation amounts to Rs.4,43,209/-, which is               F
 rounded off to Rs.4,43,000/-. The compensation shall be
 payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of
 9% by all the respondents jointly and severally. [Para 14]
 [727-D-F]
                                                               G
                     Case Law Reference:
     Vol. CZCVl-2 (2007-2) PLR 143 (P&H) referred to
 Para 4
     AIR 2002 SC 2607        relied on            Para 8       H
    724      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A         (2002) ACJ 1166 (SC) relied on                Para 9
          AIR 2003 SC 1817         relied on            Para 10
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2882 of 2011.
B
        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.7.2009 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAQ No. 150 of
    2009.

          K.G. Bhagat for the Appellant.
c
          Amrita Gupta, Parmanand Gaur for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          GANGULY, J.1. Leave granted.
D
        2. The appellant-claimant, Sant Singh, on 8.11.2004, was
  going to Dera Bassi from Chandigarh as a pillion-rider on the
  scooter (No. CH-01-P-7028) driven by one Nahar Singh, at
  about 1.30 PM, when the first respondent (driving Tata 709 No.
E PB-03-E-4525) came from the Dera Bassi side in a rash and
  negligent manner and struck the scooter. As a result of the
  collision, Nahar Singh and the appellant fell down and sustained
  multiple injuries. The appellant fractured his left leg below the
  knee and both the bones of his right leg. The appellant was
F admitted in Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi and thereafter was
  referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he was hospitalized for 11
  days.
       3. The appellant filed a claim petition before the MACT
  under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
G Rs.5 lacs as compensation along with 24% interest. The
  appellant was 48 years of age on the date of the accident and
  claimed to be working as a Work Munshi and earning Rs.4000/
  - p.m.
H         4. The MACT awarded total compensation of Rs.1,47,209/
      SANT SINGH v. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.                     725    ..
            [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
 - MACT awarded Rs.5,0001- as compensation for                        A
 hospitalization, special diet, attendant and transportation. As
 permanent disability of the limb had been assessed at 60%, it
 awarded Rs.1,20,0001- as compensation for permanent
 disability based on the reasoning in Piara Singh & Ors. v.
 Satpa/Kumar & Ors. [Vol. CZCVl-2 (2007-2) PLR 143 (P&H)].            B
 It also awarded Rs.22,2091- for cost incurred in purchase of
 medicines. Thus, the total compensation came to Rs.1,4 7,2091
 - with interest at 7.5%. MACT held all the respondents to be
 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the
 petitioner.                                                          c
      5. Aggrieved with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant
 appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for
 enhancement of compensation and interest. Keeping in view
 the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was
 of the opinion that the amount of compensation awarded was           D
 not sufficient under the different heads for the injuries suffered
 and. treatment received by the appellant. Thus, it awarded an
 overall enhancement of Rs.15,0001-, which it felt would make
 the compensation just and reasonable.
                                                                      E
        6. Still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
  High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal before this
  Court. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had completely
' failed to compensate him for loss of future earnings for which
  multiplier method was to have been applied as per the Second        F
  Schedule to section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further,
  the appellant contended that he was entitled to interest @ 9%.
      7. Having heard the parties and on perusal of evidence on
 record, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the appellant
 deserves to be allowed.                                              G
     8. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. etc.,
 v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others etc. etc., [AIR 2002 SC
 2607], the Court observed that:
                                                                      H
    726       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A       "We therefore, hold that ordinarily while awarding
        compensation, the provisions contained in the second
        schedule may be taken as a guide including the multiplier,
        but there may arise some cases, as one in hand, which
        may fall in the category having special feature or facts
B      .calling for deviation from the multiplier usually applicable."

        9. In the case of Smt. Supe Dei and Ors. v. National
    Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. [(2002) ACJ 1166 (SC)], the
    Supreme Court observed as follows:

C         "... It is not disputed that though the second schedule to the
          Act in terms does not apply in the case since the claim is
          not made under Section 163A of the Act, it serves as a
          guideline for the purpose of determination of
          compensation under Section 166 of the Act."
D
        10. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
    Geological Survey of India and another, [AIR 2003 SC 1817),
    this Court has observed:

          "It is now a well settled principle of law that the payment
E         of compensation on the basis of structured formula as
          provided for under the Second Schedule should not
          ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor
          Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of
          the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166
F         thereof. Deviation of the structured formula, however, as
          has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in
          exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of com
          pensation should be just and fair in the facts and
          circumstances of each case."
G
        11. Thus, though the present claim is made under section
    166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the principles for determining
    compensation as per Section 163A can be used as a guide.
    Thus, the Second Schedule can be used as a reference for
H
    SANT SINGH v. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.                    727
          [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
determining compensation in a claim under Section 166 of the        A
Act.

      12. Applications made under Section 166 are to be
determined based on the principles laid down in Section 168
of the Act, whereby, the Tribunal must award compensation that      8.
is just.

     13. Hence, we are of the view that in the present case,
compensation should be awarded on the basis of the principles
contained in the Second Schedule ,to the Act and thus, the
Tribunal and the High Court erred in not considering the same.      C
The award of the High Court is thus set aside.

      14. The appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. which
amounts to Rs.48,000/- per year. After deduction of 1/3rd for
personal expenses, the annual income of the appellant would         o
be Rs.32,000/-. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, as the appellant was aged 48 years, a multiplier
of 13 is to be applied. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.4,16,000/-. We also award Rs.5,000/- as
compensation for hospitalization, special diet, attendant and       E
transportation and Rs.22,209/- for cost incurred in purchase of
medicines. Thus, total compensation amounts to Rs.4,43,209/
-, which is rounded off to Rs.4,43,000/-. The compensation shall
be payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9%
by all the respondents jointly and severally.
                                                                    F
    15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.