1. Interpretation of Section 163-A and 163-B read with the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation calculations. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1413
Supreme Court Of India
PASPATI PRASAD
Versus
SURESH PD. SAH
Decided On : (August 30, 2000)
The court is examining anomalies in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation calculations under Sections 163-A and 163-B, specifically noting that notional income for those without income could lead to higher compensation than for those with low actual income.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 163A and 163B and Second Schedule- Anomalies existing in Second Schedule- A three-Judge Bench ofSupreme Court adverting to the table provided in the Second Schedule pointed out several mistakes which are discernible from the figures given in the table. (Vide paragraph 18 of U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 )- It was pointed out that there would have been some overlooking either in the drafting or in the finalising of the table which could be worked out only if the original Bill and the deliberations are scrutinised- Assistance of either the Attorney-General for India or Solicitor-General of India sought. [Paras 3 and 4]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the Second Schedule contains anomalies where persons with no income may receive higher compensation than those with low annual income. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed prima facie anomalies and mistakes in the Second Schedule's compensation table, suggesting drafting errors requiring scrutiny of the original Bill. (Para 3 )
4. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contains prima facie anomalies regarding notional income calculations for compensation. (Para 3 )
5. Fresh notices issued to respondents, assistance requested from the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, and the matter listed for hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 )
6. What is the primary legal issue regarding the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
The court is examining anomalies and mistakes in the compensation table of the Second Schedule, specifically regarding the interpretation of Section 163-A and 163-B. (Para 3 )
7. What specific anomaly was noted regarding notional income for compensation?
Under Item 6 of the Second Schedule, notional income for those with no income is set at Rs 15,000 per annum, potentially resulting in higher compensation than for those with actual low income. (Para 3 )
8. How does the court intend to resolve the identified anomalies in the statutory table?
The court intends to scrutinize the original Bill and deliberations to determine if errors occurred during the drafting or finalizing of the table. (Para 3 )
( 1 ) ISSUE fresh notice to Respondent 5. SLPs Nos. 7817 and 7969 of 2000
( 2 ) ISSUE fresh notice to unserved respondents. SLPs Nos. 16506 of 1998 and 8742 of 1999
( 3 ) THE main contention relates to the interpretation of Section 163-A read with Section 163-B vis-a-vis the Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Prima facie, we have noticed a lot of anomalies in the Second schedule. More than that, a three-Judge Bench of this Court adverting to the table provided in the Second Schedule has pointed out several mistakes which are discernible from the figures given in the table. (Vide paragraph 18 of U. P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra.) We have also noticed from Item 6 of the second Schedule that notional income for compensation to those who had no income (before the date of the accident) should be taken as Rs 15,000 per annum. If that was what the legislature intended the anomalous situation has been caricatured by Shri T. L. Vishwanath Iyer, learned Senior Counsel who is appointed as amicus curiae in this case as thus: if the deceased was aged 35 years and before his death he had the annual income of Rs 12,000 the compensation, according to the table in the Second schedule, cannot exceed 1. 92 lakhs, but if the same person had no income the compensation amount would go much beyond that amount. Learned senior Counsel submitted that there would have been some overlooking either in the drafting or in the finalising of the table which can be worked out only if the original Bill and the deliberations are scrutinised.
( 4 ) AS this is a matter having implications all over India we deem it necessary to have the assistance of either the Attorney-General for India or solicitor-General of India. We, therefore, request either of them also to assist us in these cases.
( 5 ) LIST all matters on 19-9-2000.
