Supreme Court's Stance on Road Accident Claims
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 judgments held the view that the table for calculating damages was "unworkable." 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 analyzed 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.
Thanks
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 judgments held the view that the table for calculating damages was "unworkable." 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 analyzed 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.
Thanks
1 Attachment(s) [Login To View]