IMPORTANT POINTS
Multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be the guidelines.
Amount of compensation should be just, not a windfall for the victim. Take home salary as also other allowance and perks which would have benefited the entire family and prospective loss of future earnings should be taken into consideration.
Tribunal and court are not bound by the amount claimed.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 29.05.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.2041 of 2006 whereby and whereunder a First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment and award dated 03.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak directing the appellant herein to pay compensation with interest to the respondent, was dismissed.

3. One Joginder Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while riding a two wheeler met with an accident on 29.11.2003 as it collided with a truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant by its owner who is respondent No.5 herein.

4. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The deceased was an employee of Maruti Udyog Limited and had been drawing a sum of Rs.16,110/-per month. The Tribunal determined his income at Rs.17,244/-per month by its award dated 3.2.2006. His age was determined as 41 years 10 months and 9 days. A multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at the amount of compensation at a sum of Rs.22,12,200/-.

5. A First Appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2007.

6. Dr. Meera Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would urge :

1) The Tribunal and consequently the High Court should have restricted the award of compensation only to the sum claimed by the claimant in the claim petition.

2) Provisions of Schedule II attached to Section 163-A being applicable strictly in cases where the income of the deceased does not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum, the multiplier specified therein should not have been applied.

3) The claimants having not disclosed as to what amount they had received from the insurance company and who was the insurer of the scooter driven by the deceased, the impugned judgment should not be sustained.

7. Mr. A.V. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

8. The deceased was occupying the post of Technical in a Weld Shop Work in Maruti Udyog Limited. His net salary was Rs.16,110/-per month. Both the courts below, however, in terms of the evidences brought on record found salary payable to the deceased at Rs.17,244.95 per month. This finding of the Tribunal had not been questioned before the High Court. Indisputably, again the age of the deceased at the time of death was found to be 41 years 10 months and 9 days.

9. It has not been denied or disputed that the multiplier method can be applied for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation in a motor accident in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We have, however, do not mean to suggest that the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be applied automatically.

In Rani Gupta v. United India Insurance Company & Ors. [2009 (5) SCALE 439] this Court observed that in an appropriate case, the matter may require consideration by larger Bench keeping in view paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Note appended to the Second Schedule of the Act in terms whereof the multiplier was to be adopted only in a case of permanent total or partial disability.

10. The Second Schedule provides for a new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income in a more liberal or rational way.

If that be so, a question arises as to 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. Such a dichotomy, in our opinion, could be resolved by finding the applicability of multiplier in the cases where