JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

1. Application of the principles for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the 1939 Act') and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') is the question involved herein. Before, embarking on the said question we may notice the fact of the matters involved in each case.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8205/2007

2. Madan Mohan Singh Saini met with an accident on 3rd September, 1987, when the scooter on which he was riding, collided with a Maruti van, driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the insurer. He was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 8th September, 2006.

Appellants herein who are, wife, children and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, under Sections 110A and 92A of the Act.

By an award dated 13th July, 1992 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- by way of compensation with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said amount, appellants filed an appeal being FAO before the High Court of Delhi. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 8th February, 2007 enhanced the compensation by Rs. 17,000/-.

The appellants still dissatisfied have filed the present appeal by obtaining special leave.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21649 of 2006.

4. Jagmohan Singh, (deceased), husband of appellant No. 1; father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant Nos. 4 and 5, died in an accident with a D.T.C. bus.

The appellants filed a claim petition before the Additional District Judge/Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Ghaziabad claiming a sum of Rs. 27,50,000/- by way of compensation.

By its order dated 21st May, 1996 a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition, was awarded.

5. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants filed an FAO before the Allahabad High Court. A Division Bench of the said Court by its judgment and order dated 26th May, 2006 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 4,08,000/-.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6791 of 2007.

6. Sergeant Dalbir Singh died in a road accident on 17th September, 1997 with a truck which was driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the owner and insurance company respectively.

The appellants, who are the legal heirs, i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad under Sections 166 and 140 of the 1988 Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its award dated 26th June, 2000 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,49,600/- with 12% interest on the said amount by way of compensation.

7. Feeling dissatisfied, appellants filed an FAO before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and by the impugned judgment and order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the amount compensation by Rs. 1,20,600/- besides interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

8. The common questions which arise for our consideration in these appeals are:

1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?

2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?

Before we, however, advert to the said questions we may notice that Section 163A of the Act was inserted on or about 14th November, 1994.

9. Even prior to the enactment of the said provision, this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.: AIR1994SC1631 following the decisions of the English Cour