In road accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the statutory schedule for calculating compensation need not be scrupulously followed by tribunals and courts, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, Reshthankma Kumari vs Madan Mohan.
There were differing views among Supreme Court judges for over a decade about the second schedule of the Act. Some judgements held the view that the table for calculating damages was “unworkable”. Some other decisions maintained that the schedule was a good guide for computing compensation. Despite this raging controversy, Parliament had failed to make amendments in the law for two decades. In view of the differences, this case was referred to a larger bench for a final view. In this judgment, the three- judge bench analysed earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and laid down a set of guidelines for arriving at a fair figure for damages under various situations, like when the accident was caused by negligence (Section 166) and when ‘ no- fault liability’ is invoked ( Section 163- A). The court asked all forums below to follow the new guidelines and those laid down in its 2009 judgment in Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, setting to rest the contrary views.
Dear Mr. Agarwal
The attachment judgement is 34 pages of legal words, i am not capable of making full sense of it. so I would appreciate if you can tell me what the Supreme Court has decided. Do courts need to follow the multiplier in the schedule, or is a different formula applied or is the decision somewhere in between 15th April 2013 From India, Mumbai
Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page. Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)