Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2047
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Kumar Sharma
BHANWAR LAL - Appellant
Versus
DEVAL - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal 2173 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/27/2006
Jagdish Singh Chauhan, N.S.Dhakad, U.P.Gaur
The multiplier method as set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must be the accepted method for determining just compensation, ensuring uniformity and certainty in awards.
Headnote:
Multiplier Method - Motor Accident Compensation - The court applied the multiplier method as set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to determine just compensation for the claimants, highlighting the importance of uniformity and certainty in compensation awards.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants appealed the size of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, contending that the multiplier of 15 should have been applied as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the compensation awarded to be insufficient and enhanced it from Rs. 58,000 to Rs. 2,25,000, applying the multiplier method and also granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the applicability of the multiplier method as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the established principle that the multiplier method must be the accepted method for determining just compensation, ensuring uniformity and certainty in awards.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation and granting interest to the claimants.
( 1 ) HEARD rival submissions.
( 2 ) THE claimant-appellants being dissatisfied with the size of the award have preferred the instant appeal. Learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Baran awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs. 58,000 to claimant-appellants vide award dated July 17, 2003 in relation to the incident occurred on May 24, 2002 that took life of Kapil aged 7 years.
( 3 ) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that as per Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the multiplier of 15 would have been to be applied.
( 4 ) IN Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, Their lordships of the Supreme Court indicated in para 3 thus:
" As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000 must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000.
( 5 ) IT is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held by the Apex court that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country.
( 6 ) I am satisfied that the compensation awarded to appellant is insufficient. I, therefore, allow the appeal of appellants and enhance the compensation from Rs. 58,000 to rs. 2,25,000. The appellants shall also get interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from July 11, 2002.
