1) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
2) Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors[1994 (2) SCC 176].,
3) Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors[1996 (3) SCC 179].,
4) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Trilok Chandra and Ors.[ 1996 (4) SCC 362]
5) Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.[ 2001 (2) SCC 9],
6) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.[ 2002 (6) SCC 281],
7) Jyoti Kaul & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr.[ 2002 (6) SCC 306],
8) Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr.[ 2003 (3) SCC 148],
9) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.[ 2007 (10) SCC 1]
10) Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr.[ 1977 (2) SCC 441]
11) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another[1987 (3) SCC 234]
12) Davies & Anr. v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd.[ 1942 (1) All ER 657]
13) Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd.[ 1951 (2) All ER 448]
14) Mallett v. Mc Monagle[1969 (2) All ER 178]
15) Supe Dei (Smt) and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and
another[(2009) 4 SCC 513]
16) Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda[(2004) 5 SCC 385]
17) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jashuben and Ors.[ 2008 (4) SCC 162]
18) Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.[ 2009 (6) SCC 121]
18) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr[2005 (10) SCC 720].,
19) T.N. State Road Transport Corporation v. S. Rajapriya and Ors.[ 2005(6) SCC 236]
20) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors.[ 2006 (6)
SCC 249]
21) Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins[(1913) AC 1]
22) C.K. Subramania Iyer and Ors. v. T.Kunhikuttan Nair and Ors.[ 1970 (2) SCR 688]
23) Fakeerappa and Anr. v. Karnataka Cement
24) Pipe Factory and Others; [(2004) 2 SCC 473]]
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.)
RESHMA KUMARI AND ORS.
Appellants
VERSUS
MADAN MOHAN AND ANR.
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2009-Decided on 2-4-2013.
(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
...........
40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows:
(i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma17 read with para 42 of that judgment.
(ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma17 should be followed.
(iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma17 for determination of compensation in cases of death.
(v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma17.
(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma17 subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration.
41. The reference is answered accordingly. Civil appeals shall now be posted for hearing and disposal before the regular Bench.