REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2882       OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.32375/2009)

Sant Singh ...Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

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,  

1

when the first respondent (driving Tata 709 No. 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 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 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.

4. The  MACT  awarded  total  compensation  of  

Rs.1,47,209/-.  MACT  awarded  Rs.5,000/-  as  

compensation  for  hospitalization,  special  diet,  

2

attendant  and  transportation.  As  permanent  

disability of the limb had been assessed at 60%, it  

awarded Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for permanent  

disability based on the reasoning in Piara Singh &  

Ors. v. Satpal Kumar & Ors. [Vol. CZCVI-2 (2007-2)  

PLR  143  (P&H)].  It  also  awarded  Rs.22,209/-  for  

cost incurred in purchase of medicines. Thus, the  

total  compensation  came  to  Rs.1,47,209/-  with  

interest at 7.5%. MACT held all the respondents to  

be jointly and severally liable to pay the said  

amount to the petitioner.

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 not sufficient under the different heads for  

the injuries suffered and treatment received by the  

appellant. Thus, it awarded an overall enhancement  

3

of  Rs.15,000/-,  which  it  felt  would  make  the  

compensation just and reasonable.

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  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.

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:

4

“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  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:

“…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.”

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  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  

5

Vehicles  Act  lays  down  the  guidelines  for  determination of the amount of compensation in  terms of Section 166 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  compensation  should  be  just  and  fair  in  the  facts and circumstances of each case.”

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  

determining compensation in a claim under Section  

166 of the 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 is just.

13. Hence, we are of the view that in the present  

case, compensation should be awarded on the basis  

6

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. 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  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  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.

7

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) March 04, 2011

8