(1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 620

(BEFORE S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

ASHOK GANGADHAR MARATHA .....Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 4490 of 1996, decided on September 2, 1999

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 3, 2(10), (21), (28), (47), (14), (16) &
(23), 66, 78 and 79 - Effective licence - Light motor vehicle - Neither having a
permit for a goods carriage nor carrying any goods on the date of accident -
Such a vehicle, even though designed to be used as a goods carrier or
transport vehicle, held, remained a light motor vehicle and was not a light
goods vehicle or a transport vehicle - Contrary contention of the insurer
disowning his liability, rejected - Words and phrases - "Effective driving
licence" - Meaning of - Held, means a valid licence both as regards the
period and type of vehicle - Words and phrases - "Light motor vehicle" -
Scope - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rr. 2(h) [formerly 2(e)] & 16 and
Form 6 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 2 and 14 - Insurance claim
 AIR 1991 ALLAHABAD 84
K.P. SINGH AND R.R.K. TRIVEDI, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi, Applicant v. Jagjit
Singh and others, Respondents.
F.A.F.O. No. 155 of 1985, D/- 5.10.1990.

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.110-B - Compensation - Permanent

disability caused to claimant - Quantum of compensations - Factors to be
taken into account.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.110-CC - Damages awarded to
claimant - Payment of interest - It is discretion of Tribunal - Normal rate is 6%
- Held, award of 8% was not perverse. (Para 14)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.110-B - Compensation - Permanent
disability caused to claimants - Award of special damages - Justifiable even if
claimant has received pension.
 AIR 1984 ALLAHABAD 344
U.C. SRIVASTAVA AND B.D. AGARWAL, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh, Appellant v. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar and others,
Respondents.
First Appeals Nos. 219, 260 and 334 of 1967, D-12.4.1984.*

Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), S.110-B - Disablement cases -

Principles to be followed in making award of compensation.
------------------------------
* Against judgment and decree of K.C. Singh, Addl, Civil Judge, Mirzapur, D/-
23.3.1967.
************
 AIR 1976 GUJARAT 37
J.B. MEHTA AND T.U. MEHTA, JJ.

Rehana Rahimbhai Kasambhai, Appellant v. The Transport Manager,

Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, Ahmedabad and others,
Respondents.
First Appeal No. 267 of 1972. D/- 29.7.1974*

(A) Torts - Negligence - Bus accident - Rash and negligent driving of

bus - Evidence and proof - (Motor Vehicles Act (1939), Section 110-B).
(B) Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.110-B - Negligence - Bus accident -
Contributory negligence - Liability - Doctrine of apportionment - (Torts -
Negligence - Contributory negligence.)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.110-B - Award of compensation -
Personal injury - Accident due to contributory negligence - Quantum of
damages - Factors to be considered - (Torts - Negligence - Damages -
Quantum of).

------------------------------
*(Against decision of M.K. Shah, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, in Appln No. 15 of 1969.)
 1984 A.C.J. 776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(F.A.F.O. No. 219 of 1967; decided on 12.4.1984)
PRESENT :
MR. JUSTICE U.C. SRIVASTAVA MR. JUSTICE B.D.
AGARWAL
State of U.P. .....Appellant through Secretary,
Transport Department
V.
Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar and others .....Respondents

(a) Negligence - Contributory negligence - Collision between a bus and

truck coming from opposite directions - Both vehicles tried to negotiate and
pass through the culvert at the same time - Right side of both vehicles
grazed each other causing injuries to two passengers sitting by the right side
windows of the bus - Tribunal held that both drivers were negligent in causing
the accident and apportioned their liability in the ratio of 1/3 and 1/3 and both
the injured were also held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of
1/3 and 1/5 - In appeal appellate court upheld the finding that both drivers
were negligent but did not examine the issue of contributory negligence of
the two injured passengers in the absence of any appeal or cross-objection
by the claimants. (paras 8, 11)
(b) Quantum - Injury - Amputation of right arm in the middle - Lacerated
wound on the front upper part of right arm - Injured aged 20 student of B.A.
part II - Tribunal awarded Rs. 63,000/- but reduced it to Rs. 42,000/- on
account of contributory negligence of the injured - Award upheld in appeal.
(Para 12)

(c) Quantum - Injury - Fracture of right elbow and lacerated wound -

Normal functioning by the right hand impaired - Injured aged 18-19,
intermediate student - Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,500/- but reduced it to Rs.
10,200/- on account of injured's contributory negligence - Award upheld in
appeal. (Para 13)
(d) Quantum - Injury - Compensation in cases of disablement in always
higher than in cases of death - Principles of assessment discussed.
 I (1988) ACC 138
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Present : S.C. Mohapatra, J.
ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PRATAP CHANDRA PANI AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Misc. Appeal Nos. 93 and 127 of 1986 - Decided on 20.6.1986

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110.A - Quantum of compensation

- The respondent was a pillion rider on a scooter - Mini bus dashed against
the scooter causing injuries to the respondent - The respondent remained in
the hospital, his one of the legs had become short, he had to depend on
other modes of conveyance to go to hisoffice - Respondent claimed Rs.
80,000/- as compensation for injuries, pains and sufferings, hiring other
modes of conveyance - Whether respondent was entitled to Rs. 80,000/- as
compensation - No.
***********
 1994 ACJ 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR BENCH
(M.A. No. 129 of 1990; decided on 30.6.1993)
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE R.C. LAHOTI
Ambika Srivastava .....Appellant
V.
Madhya Pradesh State and others .....Respondents

Quantum - Injury - Leg - Fracture of tibia and fibula resulting in shortening of

leg and permanent disability - Injured lady had to remain under treatment for
about two years and was confined to bed - She was hospitalized many times
and had to undergo operations including bone grafting in which long pieces
of bone 3" in length and of full thickness were taken from iliac crest and put
around the site of the fracture - Injured remained under traction for 20 days
and under cast for 8-9 months on different occasions - Injury resulted in
shortening of leg by 1.5 cm and she had swelling over the left leg and foot
even after six years of the accident limiting her mobility and free movement
of ankle joint affecting her physical efficiency - Injured, a lady aged 21,
working as draftsman and getting Rs. 755/- p.m. - Tribunal awarded Rs.
10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 3,000/- for special diet, Rs. 2,000/- for
mental pain and suffering, Rs. 7,500/- for loss of efficiency and Rs. 4,000/-
for loss of future prospects total Rs. 26,500/- - Award enhanced in appeal to
Rs. 40,000/-. (Paras 2, 13)
Quantum - Interest - Allowed at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the
date of claim petition till realisation. (Paras 2, 14)
 II (1991) ACC 714 (DB)
KERALA HIGH COURT
Present : Mr. Varghese Kalliath and Mr. G.H. Guttal, JJ.
SUDHA (MINOR) THROUGH HER FATHER .....Appellant
versus
K. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents
M.F.A. No. 688/1985 - Decided on 2.7.1991

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110A = (Section 166 of M.V. Act,
1988) - Accident - Permanent limping due to shortening of right leg caused
by the accident - Injured a minor of 8 years at the time of accident -
Compensation claimed on account of loss of marriage prospects, permanent
disability, mental agony etc. - Rs. 5,150/- awarded by the Tribunal - Appeal
against the award limited to inadequacy of amount awarded by the Tribunal -
Loss of marriage prospects is a serious loss - Rs. 5,150/- awarded by the
Tribunal found to be too inadequate - Compensation enhanced to Rs.
50,000/- - Appeal allowed.
 II (1991) ACC 716
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Present : Mr. Venkataswami, J.
PUSHPAM - Appellant
versus
NIRMALA AND ANOTHER - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 2307 of 1988 - Decided on 30.1.1991

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110A = (Section 166, Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988)" - Action personalis cum persona" - Claim petition for
personal injuries sustained - Claimant died during the pendency of the
petition - Application by the married sister of the injured for being brought on
record to continue the proceedings - Dismissed on the ground that she is not
a dependent to the injured - Whether applicant is entitled to continue the
proceedings and entitled to compensation? Yes - If so - How much?
Determination of compensation - Principles.
 1996 (36) JDJ (DB)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 20/89
Rattan Lal Mehta .....Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kapoor .....Respondent
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.
Anil Dev Singh, J.
Decided on : January 19, 1996

Interpretation of Statutes
Appendix to statutes - A table containing multiplier for assessing the
damages under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 suffering from obvious arithmetical
errors - These arithmetic mistakes can be corrected by Courts/Tribunals.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (as amended by Amendment Act of 1994)

Appendix - Table of multiplier can be treated as relevant for incidents
occurred before 15.11.94 to avoid selection of multiplier based on conflicting
judicial decisions.

Tort
General damages - Non pecuniary damages - For pain, suffering, loss of
amenities, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life - Considerations for
grant of damages - Grant of full compensation or moderate compensation -
The principle governing the award of damages including the personal
approach taking into account the feelings as also the approach of award of
damages with a view to provide solace - Discussed.
General damages - Non pecuniary damages for injuries suffered by a person
- The classification of injuries for award of damages - Discussed.
General damages - Non pecuniary damages - Its amount cannot be kept low
merely because amount of pecuniary damages is high.
General Damages - Non pecuniary damages - There is no discrimination
between rich and poor in awarding the damages.
Damages - Life expectancy - Considerations for application of multiplier -
Considerations for - Discussed.
 (2002) 3 SCC 661
(Before G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Phukan and S.B.Variava,JJ)
Union of India -vs- Bhagati Prasad(Dead) & Oth.

Motor Vehicles-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- Ss.110 and 110-A- jurisdiction of

Motor Accidents claims Tribunals-Held, not ousted so long as a motor vehicle
is involved- Claim can be filed, even if death or injury has been caused by
negligence of joint tortfeasor, not by owner/driver of motor vehicle- Any other
interpretation would result in undue hardship to claimants-In every case of an
accident "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle", the victims or their
dependents would have right to file claims before the Tribunal, even if the
accident involves collision with something other than a motor vehicle, for
instance a railway train- Such claim would be against the owner and/or
insurer of the motor vehicle as well as those of the other vehicle- Once such
claim is found to be maintainable and is entertained, the Tribunal would not
lose its jurisdiction just because the accident is ultimately found to have been
caused because of something other than a motor vehicle- Held, Division
Bench of High Court rightly found that Tribunal would have jurisdiction to
entertain claims of respondents against appellant Railway Administration-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.165 and 166.
*************
 JT 1996 (5) S.C. 356
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Versus
Trilok Chandra & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7760-7761 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10664-
65 of 1993)
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI., N.P. Singh & M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
Dt. 07-05-1996
Motor Vehicles
Accident Claim Compensation
Compensation - Determination of - Use of correct multiplier for determination
of compensation - Davie's formula preferred - Multiplier not to exceed 18
(Improvement over Susamma' case where maximum multiplier could go upto
16 only) - Mistakes in actual calculations in the Table in the Second
Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 highlighted - Neither the Tribunal
nor the Courts can go by the ready reckoner, which could only be used as a
guide - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110 B - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 163 A, 163 B and 165 A.