Compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act must adhere strictly to the Second Schedule, excluding Future prospects and non-pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - (i). This matter has wound its way to this Court on account of the differing opinions expressed, on the aspect of addition of Future prospects to compensation on a Claim Petition filed under Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, 'M. V. Act'), by two Benches of coordinate strength, comprising of the then Hon'ble Chief Justices, sitting singly, at different points in time.

(ii) A Single Bench of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (Jain, CJ.), in The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rita Thapa (Manger) and Others MAC App. No.02 of 2014 decided on 01-05-2014 : MANU/SI/0014/2014 (Sikkim), decided an Appeal impugning the award of the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which inter alia computed 'Future prospects' and 'Taxi fare' in the compensation in a Claim Petition filed under Section 163A of the M. V. Act. The Single Bench in Appeal allowed compensation under the said heads but reduced the amount under the head 'Future prospects' while the amount for 'Taxi fare' remained unchanged.

(iii) Contrarily, in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sujita Newar and Others Mac App. No.21 of 2014 decided on 07-04-2015 : 2015 SCC OnLine Sikk 69 (Sikkim), another Bench comprising of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (Sinha, CJ.) while considering the award granted by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, which included 'loss of non-pecuniary damages' computed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, opined that compensation was to be paid strictly as per the Second Schedule to the Act and set aside the amount granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages.

(iv) Reiterating this position, in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Thinlay Chewang Lachenpa and Others MAC App No.19 of 2014 decided on 21-04-2015 : 2015 (2) TAC 714 (Sikkim), the Single Bench of the then Chief Justice (Sinha, CJ.), held that heads like 'Future prospects and Transportation' do not find place in the Second Schedule and setting aside the amounts granted under the said heads, held that in a Claim under Section 163A of the M. V. Act the amount awarded under such heads is incorrect.

2. In view of the differing opinions of two Benches of coordinate strength of this Court, as reflected hereinabove, a Single Bench of this Court dealing with an Appeal where the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act deviated from the structured formula of the Second Schedule to the Act and included Future prospects, compensation for Love and affection and Litigation costs to the total compensation, deemed it apposite to refer this matter to a larger Bench, for determination of the question, viz.,

(i) Whether in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 this Court is to strictly adhere to the structured formula in the Second Schedule of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, as held in the decisions of Sujita Newar (supra) and Thinlay Chewang Lachenpa (supra) or whether it can venture beyond the structured formula as held in the decision of Rita Thapa (supra) for the purposes of computing compensation in a motor vehicle accident in which the victim meets fatality?

3. Briefly summarized, the factual background of the instant matter is that on 22-05-2017 a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M. V. Act was filed before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Sikkim, at Namchi, by the widow, two minor children, widowed mother and a physically challenged brother of the victim driver Roshan Rai, aged about 32 years, who passed away in a motor v