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
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
1446In 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
From India, Malappuram
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
The attached judgment is 34 pages of legal jargon, and I am not capable of making full sense of it. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could inform me of the Supreme Court's decision. Do courts need to follow the multiplier in the schedule, or is a different formula applied, or is the decision somewhere in between?
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Supreme court judgment on min wages (AIRFREIGHT).pd f
Recent Judgment of Honble Supreme Court on Wage eligible for contribution.pp tx