( 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.