Case: A.P.S.R.T.C Rep.By Its Chief Law Officer Vs. M.Pentaiah Chary

earnings at the date of the accident, the monthly loss would come to Rs.1500 i.e. Rs.18,000 per annum. If this monthly loss of earning is multiplied by 10 years purchase factor the compensation would work out to Rs.1,80,000. To that must be added the compensation allowed under certain other heads, namely, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, etc. The total amount comes to Rs.2,38,000." 7. Reliance has also been placed on U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Krishna Bala and Others [(2006) 6 SCC 249] wherein it was held: "13. In Susamma Thomas case it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in Trilok Chandra appears to be appropriate. In fact in Trilok Chandra case, after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. (See: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie)"; 8. As against this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and in particular having regard to a recent decision of this Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda [(2004) 5 SCC 385 : AIR 2004 SC 2107 ] 9. We have noticed hereinbefore that the accident took place on 26.01.1995. A few months prior thereto, the Parliament inserted Section 163-A of the Act-by-Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. The said provision contains a non-obstante clause in terms whereof inter alia the owner of the motor vehicle is made liable to pay, in the case of death or permanent disablement, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule appended to the Act.10. "Total Disablement" has been defined in Section 2(l) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 to mean "such disablement," whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement".11. Section 166 of the Act evidently stands on a different footing. The extent of compensation payable thereunder may vary from case to case. Various other factors including contributory negligence, earning capacity, extent of negligence on the part of one vehicle or the other, are relevant factors for computation of damages. Loss of property can also be subject matter of the claim petition.12. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra), this Court observed: "Section 163A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefore. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle." 13. We, therefore, fail to visualise that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependant on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the Parliament should not be accepted.14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefore there must exist strong circumstances. In the year 1995, the rate of interest was lower than the rate of interest taken into consideration in Susamma Thomas (supra). Application of multiplicative factor should also be considered from that angle.Susamma Thomas (supra) or the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, do not lay down any law in absolute terms.15. In Krishna Bala (supra), the Division Bench considered that the amount of compensation will have to be determined having regard to the fact as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. Rate of interest, therefore, was a relevant factor.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. We have noticed hereinbefore that the accident took place on 26.01.1995. A few months prior thereto, the Parliament inserted Section 163-A of the Act-by-Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. The said provision contains a non-obstante clause in terms whereof inter alia the owner of the motor vehicle is made liable to pay, in the case of death or permanent disablement, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule appended to the Act.10. "Total Disablement" has been defined in Section 2(l) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 to mean "such disablement," whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement".11. Section 166 of the Act evidently stands on a different footing. The extent of compensation payable thereunder may vary from case to case. Various other factors including contributory negligence, earning capacity, extent of negligence on the part of one vehicle or the other, are relevant factors for computation of damages. Loss of property can also be subject matter of the claim petition.12. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra), this Court163A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefore. An award made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in columns 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle.We, therefore, fail to visualise that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependant on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the Parliament should not be accepted.14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefore there must exist strong circumstances. In the year 1995, the rate of interest was lower than the rate of interest taken into consideration in Susamma Thomas (supra). Application of multiplicative factor should also be considered from that angle.Susamma Thomas (supra) or the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, do not lay down any law in absolute terms.15. In Krishna Bala (supra), the Division Bench considered that the amount of compensation will have to be determined having regard to the fact as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. Rate of interest, therefore, was a relevant factor.