Hon'ble LODHA, J.—A two-Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.) proceeded to hear these appeals on two common questions, namely, (1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”) should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospect. In the course of hearing few decisions of this Court, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. ((1994) 2 SCC 176 = RLW 1995(2) SC 19), Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. vs. Balwant Yadav and Ors. ((1996) 3 SCC 179), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. ((1996) 4 SCC 362 = RLW 1996(2) SC 130), Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. ((2001) 2 SCC 9 = RLW 2001(2) SC 308), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. ((2002) 6 SCC 281 = RLW 2002(4) SC 526), Jyoti Kaul & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. ((2002) 6 SCC 306), Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document