2009 (5) TMI 902 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the claimant had not disclosed as to what amount they had received from the insurance company with whom the scooter driven by the deceased was insured? Why the injured claimant and/or heirs and legal representatives of the victim in a case of death on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle would get a lesser amount than the one specified in the Second Schedule although both are similarly situated?

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment and order of High Court dismissing First Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision.
2. Determination of compensation amount based on deceased's income, age, and multiplier.
3. Applicability of multiplier in compensation calculation.
4. Consideration of future prospects and other allowances in determining compensation.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision dismissing the First Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order to pay compensation to the respondent. The deceased met with an accident, leading to the claim for compensation.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal determined the deceased's income and age to calculate the compensation amount. The deceased, an employee at Maruti Udyog Limited, was earning a monthly salary, which was considered in determining the compensation. The multiplier method was applied, resulting in the final compensation amount.

Issue 3:
The appellant argued against the application of the multiplier specified in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that it should only apply to cases with income below a certain threshold. The Court discussed the applicability of the multiplier and the need for a consistent approach in determining compensation amounts.

Issue 4:
The Court emphasized the importance of considering future prospects and other allowances in determining a just compensation amount. It highlighted the need to avoid rigid tests and consider the deceased's potential for promotion and bright future prospects. The Court also noted that the compensation should not be a windfall but should account for the loss suffered by the deceased's heirs and legal representatives.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision on compensation. It emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of various factors, including income, age, future prospects, and other allowances, in determining a fair and just compensation amount in cases of accidents resulting in death.