MACP Referencer Manual

MOTORACCIDENTCLAIM

PETITIONREFERENCE

MANUALPrepared by Hanif. S. Mulia.

[email protected]

1 MACP Reference Manual

CONTENTSSr. No.

Particulars Page No.

1Re Requirement for the police to forward to the Claims Tribunal

AccidentInformationReport(AIR)whichtheTribunalhastotreat

asanapplicationforcompensation.

6

2 HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinFatalInjuriesweresustainedbythedeceased

12

3 How to decide a claim petition wherein claimant has sustained

Injuries

19

4 Howtodeterminemonthlyincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredwhen

nodocumentinsupportthereofisproduced

42

5 Howtodetermineincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredclaimantwhen

thereisdocumentaryevidenceonrecordtoshowthatthedeceased

or injured claimant was earning in foreign currency and not in

IndianRupee

44

6 HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwheredefenceofInvalid,Learners

Licence&FakeDrivingLicenceandDefenseofQualification/Badge

istaken

46

7 InwhichcircumstancesInsurerisliabletopaycompensationwhen

injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicle

55

8 Liability of insurer to compensation in the cases where injured

claimantordeceasedwastravellingintheprivatecarasoccupants

Ortravellingontwowheeleraspillionrider

59

9 Howtodecideaclaimpetitionpreferredundersection163Aofthe

Act

60


10 What if the cheque given for payment of premiumof insurance

policyisdishonoured

64

11 WhatisthemeaningofArisingoutofuseofMotorVehicle 6512 WhetherFinanceCompany,whichhasadvancedloanforthepurpose

ofpurchaseofvehicleunderthe'HirePurchaseAgreement'canbe

saidtobetheowneroftheVehicle

67

13 Whendriveroftheunknownvehiclespedawayaftertheaccident,

whetherinsuchsituationclaimpetitionismaintainableinviewof

theprovisionscontainedunderSections161&163oftheAct

68

14 Whetherallthejointtortfeasorsarerequiredtobejoinedasparty

opponentsintheclaimpetition

70

15 Whetherthepointofnegligenceandliabilityofinsurer,decidedby

thecoordinateTribunalisbindingontheothercoordinateTribunal,

iftheclaimpetitionhasarisenfromthesameaccident

72

16Whetheraclaimpetitionpreferredbytheaclaimant(alsotheownerof

the offending vehicle, without involving another vehicle) alleging

therein that accident occurred because of the rash and negligent

drivingofthevehicleownedbyhimismaintainable

73

17 WhatisthemeaningofPublicPlace,asdefinedu/s2(34)ofthe

Act

75

18 What if, thevehiclewhichmetwithanaccident is soldof by its

ownerbeforethedateofaccidentandnameofthetransfereeowner

(purchaser)isnotenteredintotheR.C.Book

78

19 Whetheraclaimpetitioncanbedismissedforwantofprosecutionor

nonappearanceoftheclaimantand/orhisAdvocate

83

20 Whetheraclaimpetitioncanbe dismissed for nonproductionof

documentsmentionedunderRule211oftheGujaratMotorVehicles

84


Rules,198821 Howtodecideaclaimpetition,whereinsurerhastakenadefenceof

violationof'Permit'

85

22WWhetheranawardpassedbytheTribunalcanbereviewed: 8823 DetailsofProposalFormsforPrivateCars/MotorisedTwoWheelers

PackagePolicyandLiabilityOnly/ActPolicy:90

24 Standard wordings in respect of the Policy including Premium

computationtable,certificateofInsuranceandCoverNote

90

25CeCertainminorpoints/issueswhichcreatelittletroubleforLd.Judges

todecidesuchtrickypoints/issues.Suchpoints/issues,withcitations

andreadyreckoner.

91


1. Whiledecidingaclaimpetition,preferredundertheMotorVehiclesAct,

1988(hereinafterreferredas'theAct'),moreoftenthennot,Ld.Judgesof

theTribunalsarevexedwithsuchquestionsthatitbecomesdifficultfor

themtocometoacertainconclusion,mainreasonsforsuchvexationare:

a)Nonavailabilityofjudgmentsoncertainpoints,

b)If judgments are available on some points, they run in

differentdirections,

c) Lackofknowledgetodecide,astowhethertheinsurance

policyis 'ActPolicy'(StatutoryPolicy)or 'Comprehensive

Policy'(PackagePolicy).

2. Bywayof this Article, an attempt is made to help Judicial Officers to

decideclaimpetitionseasily,andmoreparticularly,inaccordancewiththe

law. Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts have laid down

principles/guidelines to decide claim petitions, which will be discussed

hereinbelow.


3.RequirementforthepolicetoforwardtotheClaimsTribunalAccident

InformationReport(AIR)whichtheTribunalhastotreatasanapplication

forcompensation:

3.1 TheBenchcomprisingofThreeHon'bleLordshipsofHon'bleApex

Court in the case of Jai Prakash v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd,

reportedin2010(2)GLR(SC)hasgivenfollowingdirectionstoPolice

andTribunals.

A)DirectionstothePoliceAuthorities:

TheDirectorGeneralofPoliceofeachStateisdirectedtoinstruct

allpolicestationsinhisStatetocomplywiththeprovisionsofSec.

158(6)oftheAct.Forthispurpose,thefollowingstepswillhave

to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional

policestations:

(i)AccidentInformationReport('AIR',forshort)inFormNo.

54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall be

submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the

jurisdictionalMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal,within30days

oftheregistrationoftheF.I.R.Inadditiontotheparticulars

requiredtobefurnishedinFormNo.54,thepoliceshouldalso

collectandfurnishthefollowingadditionalparticularsinthe

AIRtotheTribunal:

(i)Theageofthevictimsatthetimeofaccident;

(ii)Theincomeofthevictim;

(iii)Thenamesandagesofthedependentfamilymembers.

(ii)TheAIRshallbeaccompaniedbytheattestedcopiesofthe


F.I.R., site sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of

occurrence,drivinglicenceofthedriver,insurancepolicy(and

ifnecessary,fitnesscertificate)ofthevehicleandpostmortem

report(incaseofdeath)ortheinjuredordependentfamily

members of the deceased should also be furnished to the

Tribunal.

(iii)Simultaneously,acopyoftheAIRwithannexuresthereto

shall be furnished to the Insurance Companyconcerned to

enabletheinsurertoprocesstheclaim.

(iv) Thepoliceshallnotifythefirstdateofhearingfixedby

theTribunaltothevictim(injured)orthefamilyofthevictim

(incaseof death) and the driver, ownerand insurer. If so

directedbytheTribunal,thepolicemaysecuretheirpresence

onthefirstdateofhearing.

B)DirectionstotheClaimsTribunals:

The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to

instructallClaimsTribunalsinhisStatetoregisterthereports

of accidents received under Sec. 158(6) of the Act as

applicationsforcompensationunderSec.166(4)oftheAct

anddeal with themwithout waiting for the filingof claim

applicationsbytheinjuredorbythefamilyofthedeceased.

TheRegistrar General shall ensure that necessary registers,

formsandothersupportisextendedtotheTribunaltogive

effecttoSec.166(4)oftheAct.


ForcomplyingwithSec.166(4)oftheAct,thejurisdictional

MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunalsshallinitiatethefollowing

steps:

(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for

recordingtheAIRs.whicharereceivedfromtheStationHouse

Officersofthepolicestationsandregisterthemasmiscellaneous

petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with

referencetoanAIR,theyshouldalsoberecordedintheregister.

(b)TheTribunalshalllisttheAIRs.asmiscellaneouspetitions.It

shallfixadateforpreliminaryhearingsoastoenablethepolice

tonotifysuchdatetothevictim(familyofthevictimintheevent

ofdeath)andtheowner,driverandinsurerofthevehicleinvolved

intheaccident.Once,theclaimant(s)appear,themiscellaneous

application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a

claimant(s)filetheclaimpetitionevenbeforethereceiptofthe

AIRbytheTribunal,theAIRmaybetaggedtotheclaimpetition.

(c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR

relatestoarealaccidentandisnottheresultofanycollusionand

fabricationofanaccident(byany"policeofficerAdvocatedoctor"

nexus,whichhascometolightinseveralcases).

(d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the

dependentfamilymembers/legalheirs. Thejurisdictionalpolice

shallalsoenquireandsubmitthenamesofthedependentlegal

heirs.

(e)TheTribunalshallcategorisetheclaimcasesregistered,into

those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the


insurerdoesnotdisputetheliability.

(f)Wherevertheinsurerdoesnotdisputetheliabilityunderthe

policy, theTribunal shall makeanendeavour to determinethe

compensationamountbyasummaryenquiryorreferthematter

totheLokAdalat for settlement, soastodisposeoftheclaim

petitionitself,withinatimeframenotexceedingsixmonthsfrom

thedateofregistrationoftheclaimpetition.

(g) The Insurance Companies shall be directed to deposit the

admitted amount or the amount determined, with the Claims

Tribunalswithin30daysofdetermination.TheTribunalsshould

ensurethatthecompensationamountiskeptinafixeddeposit

anddisbursedasperthedirectionscontainedinKeralaS.R.T.C.v.

SusammaThomas,1994(2)SCC176.

(h)AstheproceedinginitiatedinpursuanceofSecs.158(6)and

166(4)oftheActaredifferentinnaturefromanapplicationby

the victims(s) under Sec. 166(1)of theAct, Sec. 170will not

apply.TheinsurerswillthereforebeentitledtoassisttheTribunal

(eitherindependentlyorwiththeownersofthevehicles)toverify

thecorrectnessinregardtotheaccident,injuries,age,incomeand

dependants of the deceased victim and in determining the

quantumofcompensation.

C)Directionwithrespecttoinvestment:

InparaNo.28&29ofJaiPrakash'scase(supra)ithasbeenheldas

under:

28.Toprotectandpreservethecompensationamountawardedto


the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be

considered by the Insurance Companies in consultationwith Life

InsuranceCorporationofIndia,StateBankofIndiaoranyother

NationalisedBanks.Oneproposalisforformulationofaschemein

consultation with the Nationalised Banks under which the

compensationiskeptinafixeddepositforanappropriateperiod

andinterestispaidbytheBankmonthlytotheclaimantswithout

anyneedfortheclaimantshavingtoapproacheithertheCourtor

their Counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should

ensure that the amount of compensation is utilised only for the

benefitoftheinjuredclaimantsorincaseofdeath,forthebenefitof

thedependentfamily.

29.Weextractbelowtheparticularsofaspecialschemeofferedbya

NationalisedBankattheinstanceoftheDelhiHighCourt:

(i)Thefixeddepositshallbeautomaticallyrenewedtilltheperiod

prescribedbytheCourt.

(ii)Theinterestonthefixeddepositshallbepaidmonthly.

(iii)Themonthlyinterestshallbecreditedautomaticallyinthesavings

accountoftheclaimant.

(iv)OriginalfixeddepositreceiptshallberetainedbytheBankinsafe

custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the

claimantalongwiththephotocopyoftheF.D.R.

(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the

claimantattheendofthefixeddepositperiod.

(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the


withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the

Bankoftheidentitycardoftheclaimant.

(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without the

permissionoftheCourt.

(viii)Noloan,advanceorwithdrawalshallbeallowedonthefixed

depositwithoutthepermissionoftheCourt.

(ix) The claimant can operate the Savings Bank account from the

nearestbranchofU.CO.Bankandontherequestoftheclaimant,

theBankshallprovidethesaidfacility.


4.HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinFatalInjuriesweresustainedbythedeceased:

4.1 InSarlaVermav/sDelhiTransportCorporation,reportedin2009

ACJ1298(SC)=AIR2009SC3104guidelinesfordeterminationof

multiplier,futureprospectsofthedeceased,deductiontowardspersonal

andlivingexpendituresareissued.Theratiolaiddowninthecaseof

SarlaVerma(supra)wasconsideredbytheThreeHon'bleJudgesofthe

Hon'bleApexCourt inthecaseofReshmaKumariv/sMadanMohan,

reportedin2013ACJ1253(SC)anditisheldthatratiolaiddowninthe

caseofSaralVerma(supra)shouldbefollowedbythealltheTribunals.

TheprincipleslaiddowninthecaseofSralaVeramandReshmaKumari

(supra) qua determination of multiplier, future prospects of the

deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenditures are as

under:

a)ChoiceofMultiplier:

Age of the Deceased MultiplierUpto 15 years 1515 to 20 years 1821 to 25 years 1826 to 30 years 1731 to 35 years 1636 to 40 years 1541 to 45 years 1446 to 50 years 1351 to 55 years 1156 to 60 years 961 to 65 years 7Above 65 years 5


b)WhatshouldbethemultiplierinthecaseofFatalinjurycase,wheredeceasedwasunmarriedson/daughter:

Therearedifferenceofopinionastowhatshouldbethemultiplierin

the case of fatal injury case, where deceased was unmarried

son/daughter.InShyamSingh,reportedin2011(7)SCC65=2011

ACJ1990(SC),ithasbeenheldthatMultiplierinthecaseofdeathof

unmarried son/daughter, proper multiplier should be arrived at by

assessingaverageageofparentsofthedeceased.Butdifferentviews

aretakenbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecasesofP.S.Somnathanv/s

Dist.InsuranceOfficer, reportedin2011ACJ737(SC), AmritBhanu

Shaliv/sNICom.,reportedin2012ACJ2002(SC),Saktideviv/sNI

Com,reportedin2010(14)SCC575andReshmaKumariv/sMadan

Mohan,reportedin2013ACJ1253(SC).Intheabovereferredcasesit

hasbeenheld that in thecaseof deathof unmarriedson/daughter,

multipliershouldbeaappliedonthebasisofageofthedeceasedand

notonthebasisofaverageageoftheparentsofthedeceased.

c)FutureProspectofDeceased:

In para No.11of the Srala Verama's (supra) judgment it is held as

under:

Inviewof imponderables anduncertainties, wearein favourof

adoptingasaruleofthumb,anadditionof50%ofactualsalaryto

theactualsalaryincomeofthedeceasedtowardsfutureprospects.

wherethedeceasedhadapermanentjobandwasbelow40years.

[Wheretheannualincomeisinthetaxablerange,thewords'actual


salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition

shouldbeonly30%iftheageofthedeceasedwas40to50years.

Thereshouldbenoaddition,wheretheageofdeceasedismorethan

50years.Thoughtheevidencemayindicateadifferentpercentageof

increase,itisnecessarytostandardizetheadditiontoavoiddifferent

yardsticksbeingappliedordifferentmethodsofcalculationsbeing

adopted.Wherethedeceasedwasselfemployedorwasonafixed

salary(withoutprovisionforannualincrementsetc.),thecourtswill

usuallytakeonlytheactualincomeatthetimeofdeath.Adeparture

therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases

involvingspecialcircumstances.

4.2 From the above referred observations, it becomes clear that

where the deceased hada permanent job and was below40 years

(wheretheannualincomeis inthetaxablerange,thewords 'actual

salary'shouldbereadas 'actualsalary,lesstax'),additionshouldbe

50%and if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years,

additionshouldbeonly30%andthereshouldbenoaddition,where

the age of deceased is more than50years. In the cases where the

deceasedwasselfemployedorwasonafixedsalary,withoutprovision

forannualincrementsetc.,theTribunalcanusuallytakeonlytheactual

incomeatthetimeofdeath.

4.3 It is also required to be born in mind that House Rent

Allowance, Medical Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Dearness Pay,

Employees Provident Fund, Government Insurance Scheme, General


ProvidentFund,C.C.A.etcshouldbetreatedaspartandparcelofthe

incomeofthedeceased,whilecalculatingincomeofthedeceasedfor

thepurposeofcomputingcompensation.Referencemaybemadeto

ratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofSunilSharmav/s

BachitarSingh,reportedin2011ACJ1441(SC)alsoseeVimalKanwar

v/sKishoreDan,reportedin2013ACJ1441.

4.4 Now,thequestionis,whenadeparturefromtheabovereferred

guidelineshouldbemade?Inthisregards,referenceisrequiredtobe

madetotheratiolaiddowninthecaseof K.R.Madhusudhanv/s

AdministrativeOfficer,reportedinAIR2011SC979.Inthesaidcase

deceasedwasaged53yearsandwasworkingasSeniorAssistantin

KarnatakaElectricityBoard.AsperBoardAgreement,aftercompletion

offiveyears,payrevisionwascompulsoryandevidencewasproduced

bytheclaimantsshowingthatifdeceasedwouldhavebeenalivehe

would have reached gross salary of Rs. 20,000/ p.m. Hence, even

thoughdeceasedwasabove50yearsofage,itisheldthatclaimants

areentitledtocompensationcalculatedonthebasisofsuchincreased

income.

d)DeductiontowardsPersonalandLivingExpenditures:

4.5InParaNo.14ofSarlaVeram'scase(supra)itisheldasunder:

Havingconsideredseveralsubsequentdecisionsofthiscourt,weare

of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction

towardspersonalandlivingexpensesofthedeceased,shouldbeone


third(1/3rd)wherethenumberofdependentfamilymembersis2to

3,onefourth(1/4th)wherethenumberofdependantfamilymembers

is4to6,andonefifth(1/5th)wherethenumberofdependantfamily

membersexceedsix.

4.6InParaNo.14ofSarlaVeram'scase(supra)itisheldasunder:

Wherethedeceasedwasabachelorandtheclaimantsaretheparents,

the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors,

normally,50%isdeductedaspersonalandlivingexpenses,becauseit

isassumedthatabachelorwouldtendtospendmoreonhimself.Even

otherwise,thereisalsothepossibilityofhisgettingmarriedinashort

time,inwhicheventthecontributiontotheparentsandsiblingsis

likelytobecutdrastically.

4.7 Meaningthereby,thedeductiontowardspersonalandlivingexpenses

of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of

dependantfamilymembersislessthan3,onefourth(1/4th)wherethe

numberof dependant family members is 4 to 6, andonefifth (1/5th)

wherethenumberofdependantfamilymembersexceedsix.Andinthe

cases where deceased was unmarried son/daughter, the deduction

towardspersonalandlivingexpensesofthedeceased,shouldbeonehalf.

4.7.1.IthasbeenfurtherheldinParaNo.15ofSarlaVerma'scase(supra)

that:

Further,subjecttoevidencetothecontrary,thefatherislikelytohave

hisownincomeandwillnotbeconsideredasadependantandthe

mother alone will be consideredas a dependent. In the absence of


evidencetothecontrary,brothersandsisterswillnotbeconsideredas

dependents,becausetheywilleitherbeindependentandearning,or

married,orbedependantonthefather.Thusevenifthedeceasedis

survivedbyparentsandsiblings,onlythemotherwouldbeconsidered

tobeadependant,and50%wouldbetreatedasthepersonaland

livingexpensesofthebachelorand50%asthecontributiontothe

family.However,wherefamilyofthebachelorislargeanddependant

ontheincomeofthedeceased,asinacasewherehehasawidowed

motherandlargenumberofyoungernonearningsistersorbrothers,

hispersonalandlivingexpensesmayberestrictedtoonethirdand

contributiontothefamilywillbetakenastwothird.

4.8 Plainreadingofabovereferredobservations,makesitclearthat,

unless, it is proved that father of the deceased was not having

independent income, father of the deceased cannot be treated as

dependant.Sameanalogyappliesinthecasesofwhereclaimpetitionis

preferred by the sibling/s of deceased who was/were unmarried

brother/sister of such deceased. But if, it is proved that father of the

deceasedwasnothavingindependentincome,fatherofthedeceasedcan

betreatedasdependant.Inthecaseswhereclaimpetitionispreferredby

themother,sibling/swhoweresolelydependantontheincomeoftheof

deceased, in such cases, onethird (1/3rd) may be deducted towards

personalandlivingexpensesofdeceased.

4.9InSralaVeram(supra)ithasbeenheldinpar26that:

Inaddition,theclaimantswillbeentitledtoasumofRs.5,000/


under the headof 'loss of estate' andRs. 5,000/ towards funeral

expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/ as loss of

consortium'.

4.10 ButabenchofThreeHon'bleJudgesoftheHon'bleApexCourtin

thecaseofRajeshv/sRajbirSingh,reportedin2013ACJ1403hasheld

thatclaimantswillbeentitledtoasumofRs.1,00,000/undertheheadof

lossofcareandguidanceforminorchildren,Rs.25,000/towardsfuneral

expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of

consortium.


5.HowtodecideaclaimpetitionwhereinclaimanthassustainedInjuries:

5.1Iftheclaimpetitionispreferredu/s166oftheAct,ininjurycases,

choiceofmultiplierremainsthesame,asinthecaseoffatalinjuries

cases. Deductions towards personal and living expenditures are not

madeininjuriescase.Todeterminethefuturelossofincome,ratiolaid

downinthecaseofRajKumarv/sAjayKumar,reportedin2012ACJ1

=2011(1)SCC343isrequiredtobefollowed.Inparagraph6ofthe

saiddecision,thevariouselementsofcompensationareenumeratedas

under:

"Pecuniarydamages(Specialdamages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

transportation,nourishingfoodandmiscellaneousexpenditure.

(ii)Lossofearnings(andothergains)whichtheinjuredwould

havemadehadhenotbeeninjured,comprising:

(a)Lossofearningduringtheperiodoftreatment;

(b)Lossoffutureearningsonaccountofpermanentdisability.

(iii)Futuremedicalexpenses.

Nonpecuniarydamages(Generaldamages)

(iv)Damagesforpain,sufferingandtraumaasaconsequenceof

theinjuries.

(v)Lossofamenities(and/orlossofprospectsofmarriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal

longevity)".


5.2 Compensation in the case, where an injured victim is Government

Servant/Salariedperson,whosesalaryhasincreasedaftertheaccidentand

hasnotsustainedanyfinancialloss:

5.2.1 Theconceptofawardingcompensationis:thatnoamountof

compensationcanrestorethephysicalframeoftheappellant.Thatis

whyithasbeensaidbycourtsthatwheneveranyamountisdetermined

asthecompensationpayableforanyinjurysufferedduringanaccident,

the object is to compensate such injury" so far as money can

compensate" because it is impossible to equate the moneywith the

human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a

brokenandshatteredphysicalframe.

5.2.2 Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofRajKumarv/sAjayKumar,

reportedin2011ACJ1=2011(1)SCC343,hasheldinparaNo.10as

under:

Ontheotherhand,iftheclaimantwasaclerkingovernment

service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of

employmentandhemaystillbecontinuedasaclerkashecould

performhisclericalfunctions;andinthateventthelossofearning

capacitywillnotbe100%asinthecaseofadriverorcarpenter,

nor60%whichistheactualphysicaldisability,butfarless.Infact,

theremaynotbeanyneedtoawardanycompensationunderthe

head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in

government service, though he may be awarded compensation

undertheheadoflossofamenitiesasaconsequenceoflosinghis


hand...

5.2.3 Reference is also required tobe made to ratio laid downby

Hon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofGurdipsinhs/oBisensingh

Sadhuvs.ChauhanBhupendrakumarUdesing,reportedin1980GLR

221.Inthesaidjudgment,itisheldthattheCourtcanmakerough

estimateabout loss of earningcapacity in the light of thefacts and

circumstancesandtheavailabledataofmedicalevidenceonrecord.In

thesaidcase, Hon'bleHighCourthadestimatedthe loss of earning

capacityat25%ofactualincomeandclaimantwasawardedRs.45,000,

thoughtherewasnoimmediatereductioninhissalaryasaTechnical

AssistantinO.N.G.C.Relyinguponthesaiddecision,Hon'bleDivision

bench of Gujarat High Court has held in the case of Mohanbhai

Gemabhaivs.BalubhaiSavjibhai,reportedin1993(1)GLR249(para

20)that:

Nodoubt,itisimperativefortheTribunaltoconsiderthefacts

andcircumstances,andthemedicalevidence,showingtheextentof

physicalimpairment.Ifnopreciseanddirectevidenceshowingthe

percentageorextentofthedisablementisspeltout,theTribunal

canmakeroughandreasonableestimateoflossofearningcapacity

soastodeterminethejustamountofcompensationunderthehead

of'prospectiveeconomicloss'.

5.2.4 EventheobservationsofHouseofLords,reportedin1912AC

496 are very relevant and same can be taken into consideration.

Referencerequiredtobemadetotheratiolaiddownin2013ACJ79


para20.

5.2.5 From the above referred ratios of Hon'ble Apex Court and

Hon'bleGujaratHighCourt,itbecomesclearthatTribunalcangrant

compensation to those injured persons who have not suffered any

financiallossorwhosesalaryincomehaveactuallyincreasedafterthe

dateofaccidentandsuchcompensationshouldnotbeunderthehead

of'lossofFutureEarnings'butundertheheadof'LossoffAmenities'

Such claimants are entitled for such amount of compensation,

calculatedonthebasisof1/4th ofthenetsalaryincome,whichthey

weregettingatthetimeofaccident.

5.3DeterminationofpermanentPartialDisablementoftheclaimant:

5.3.1. Inthecaseswhereinjuredhadsustainedmorethatonefracture

injuries,itmayappeartoTribunalthatdisabilitycertificateissuedby

the Doctor depicts the higher value of disability than the injured

claimant has actually sustained. In such situation, Ld. Judge of the

Tribunal finds it difficult to arrive at the exact amount of disability

sustained by the injured claimant. Normally, Doctors issue disability

certificateonthebasisofformulainventedbyDr.HenryH.Kesslerin

his book titled as 'Disability Determination & Evaluation'. For

determinationofdisabilityinsuchcases,Doctorsapplyformulaevolved

byDr.HenryH.Kessler.SaidFormulareadsasunder:

A+{[B(100A)]/100}


5.3.2. In the said formula, 'A' stands for higher value of partial

disablement,whereas'B'standsforlowervalueofpartialdisablement.

Doctorsnormally, takedisadvantageofthecommentsgivenonpage

No.49 of the above referred book. Careful reading of the said

comments,leadstotheconclusionthatwheninjuredvictim/claimant

hassustainedinjuries,whichresultedintotwoormorefracturesontwo

different limbs of the body, then in such situation disablement in

relation to whole body may be assessed as per the above referred

formula.Butabovereferredformuladoesnotapplyinthecaseswhere

claimanthassustainedtwoormorefracturesonthesamelimbi.eone

fractureonrighthandandsecondonlefthandoronefractureonright

lagandsecondontheleftleg.Itisalsomentionedinthesaidbookthat

lowerpartofthebodyi.e.legsorupperpartofbodyi.e.twohandsare

consideredasonelimbofthebody(lowerlimborupper limb)and

when victim/claimant has sustained fractures on the one particular

limb then in such case, disablement in relation to whole may be

assessedasonehalfofthepermanentpartialdisablementassessedby

thedoctor. Say for anexample, claimanthassustainedone fracture

injuryonrightleganddoctorhasassesseddisabilityinrelationtoright

lowerlimbas27%andsecondfractureinjuryonleftleganddoctorhas

assesseddisabilityinrelationtoleftlowerlimbas7%andif,weapply

simple principle in the facts of the above referred example, the

disablementinrelationtowholebody,comesto17%.(27%inrelation

torightlowerlimbpluspermanentpartialimpairmentof7%inrelation

toleftlowerlimb,dividedbytwo[27%+7%]/2).But,ifweapply

the above referred formula, disablement in relation to whole body


comesto32.11%. {27+[7(10027)/100]}.Fromtheabove

referred discussion, it becomes clear that when victim/claimant has

sustained more than one fractures on one limb and when

victim/claimanthassustainedmorethanonefracturesontwolimbs,

assessmentofdisablementinrelationtowholebodyisrequiredtobe

assessedbyapplyingdifferentformulas.BookwrittenbyDr.HenryH.

Kessler,namely,'DisabilityDetermination&Evaluation'isconsidered

to be the authority as far as calculation of permanent partial

disablementisconcerned.However,itistobenotedthatDr.HenryH.

Kesslerhasalsomentionedinhisbookthatthereisalwaysvariationof

plus/minus5%,inthepermanentpartialdisablementassessedbythe

doctor.Therefore,whiledecidingpermanentpartialimpairmentofthe

injuredclaimant,abovereferredfactsarerequiredtoberemembered.

5.3.3 Reference may also be made to 'Manual For Doctors To

EvaluatePermanentPhysicalImpairment',whichisbasedonexpert

group meeting on disability evaluation and national seminar on

disability evaluation and dissemination, G.G.H.S. W.H.O. A.I.I.M.S.,

New Delhi 1981. Reference may also be made to 'Disability

GuidelinesissuedbyOfficeofChiefCommissionerforPersonswith

Disabilities, dated 1 st June 2001 . Guidelines issued in the above

referredreportsareasunder:

5.3.3.1. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment in

UpperLimbs:

1. The estimation of permanent impairment depends upon the


measurementoffunctional

impairment,andisnotexpressionofapersonalopinion.

2.Theestimationandmeasurementmustbemadewhentheclinical

conditionisfixedand

unchangeable.

3.Theupperextremityisdividedintotwocomponentpartsthearm

componentandthe

handcomponent.

4.Measurementofthelossoffunctionofarmcomponentconsistsin

measuringtheloss

ofmotion,musclestrengthancoordinatedactivities.

5.Measurementofthelossoffunctionofhandcomponentconsistsin

determiningthePrehension,Sensation&Strength. Forestimationof

Prehension : Opposition, lateral pinch, Cylindrical grasp, spherical

graspandhookgrasphavetobeassessedasshowninthecolumnof

prehensioncomponentintheproforma.

6.Theimpairmentoftheentireextremitydependsonthecombination

ofthefunctionalimpairmentofbothcomponents.

ARMCOMPONENT:

Totalvalueofarmcomponentis90%.

PrinciplesofEvaluationofrangeofmotionofjoints

1.ThevalueformaximumR.O.M.inthearmcomponentis90%.

2.Eachofthethreejointsofthearmisweightedequally(30%).

Example

A.fractureoftherightshoulderjointmayaffectrangeofmotionsothat


active adduction is 90degree. The left shoulder exhibits a range of

activeabductionof180degree.Hencethereislossof50%ofabduction

movementoftherightshoulder.Thepercentagelossofarmcomponent

in the shoulder is 50 x 0.03 or 15% loss of motion for the arm

component.

If morethanonejointis involved,samemethodis applied,andthe

lossesineachoftheaffectedjointsareadded.

Sayforexample:

Lossofabductionoftheshoulder=60%

Lossofextensionofthewrist=40%

Then,lossofrangeofmotionforthe

arm=(60x0.30)+(40x0.30)=30%

PrinciplesofEvaluationofstrengthofmuscles:

1.Strengthofmusclescanbetestedbymanualtestinglike05grading.

2.Manualmusclegradingscanbegivenpercentageslike

3.100%

4.80%

5.60%

6.40%

7.20%

8.0%

9.Themeanpercentageofmusclestrengthlossismultipliedby0.30.

Iftherehasbeenalossofmusclestrengthofmorethanonejoint,the

valuesareaddedashasbeendescribedforlossofrangeofmotion.


PrinciplesofEvaluationofcoordinatedactivities:

1.Thetotalvalueforcoordinatedactivitiesis90%.

2.Tendifferentcoordinatedactivitiesaretobetestedasgiveninthe

Proforma.

3.Eachactivityhasavalueof9%.

CombiningvaluesfortheArmComponent:

1. The value of loss of function of arm component is obtained by

combining the values of rangeof movement, muscle strength&co

ordinatedactivities,usingthecombiningformula

A+b(90a)/90

Where'a'=highervalue&'b'=lowervalue

Example

Letusassumethatanindividualwithafractureoftherightshoulder

jointhasinadditionto16.5%lossofmotionofhisarm,8.3%lossof

strengthofmuscles,and5%lossofcoordination.Wecombinethese

valuesas:

Rangeofmotion:16.5% 16.5+8.3(9016.5)/90=23.3%

StrengthofMuscles:8.3%

Coordination:5% 23.3+5(9023.3)/90=27.0%

Sototalvalueofarmcomponent=27.0%

HANDCOMPONENT:

Totalvalueofhandcomponentis90%.

Thefunctionalimpairmentofhandisexpressedaslossofprehension,

lossofsensation,lossofstrength.


PrinciplesofEvaluationofPrehension:

TotalvalueofPrehensionis30%.Itincludes:

(A)Opposition(8%).Testedagainst

Indexfinger(2%).Middlefinger(2%)

Ringfinger(2%)&Littlefinger(2%)

(B)LateralPinch(5%).Testedbyaskingthepatienttoholdakey.

(C)CylindricalGrasp(6%).Testedfor

(D)Largeobjectof4inchsize(3%)

(E)Smallobjectof1inchsize(3%)

(F)SphericalGrasp(6%).Testedfor

(G)Largeobject4inchsize(3%)

(H)Smallobject1inchsize(3%)

(I)HookGrasp(5%).Testedbyaskingthepatienttoliftabag.

PrinciplesofEvaluationofSensations:

Totalvalueofsensationis30%.Itincludes:

1.GripStrength(20%)

2.PinchStrength(10%)

3. Strength will be tested with hand dynamometer or by clinical

method(GripMethod).

10%additionalweightagetobegiventothefollowingfactors:

1.Infection

2.Deformity

3.Malaignment

4.Contractures

5.Cosmeticappearance


6.AbnormalMobility

7.DominantExtremity(4%)

Combiningvaluesofthehandcomponent:

Thefinalvalueoflossoffunctionofhandcomponentisobtainedby

summingupvaluesoflossofprehension,sensationandstrength.

CombiningValuesfortheExtremity:

Values of impairment of arm component and impairment of hand

componentarecombinedbyusingthecombiningformula.

Example

Impairmentofthearm=27% 64+27(9064)/90=71.8%

Impairmentofthehand=64%


LowerLimbs:

The lower extremity is divided into two components: Mobility

componentandStabilitycomponent.

MOBILITYCOMPONENT:

Total value of mobility component is 90%. It includes range of

movementandmusclestrength.

PrinciplesofEvaluationofRangeofMovement:

1Thevalueofmaximumrangeofmovementinthemobilitycomponent

is90%.

2. Each of the three joints i.e. hip, knee, footankle component, is


weightedequally0.30.

Example

AFractureoftherighthipjointmayaffectrangeofmotionsothat

active abduction is 27degree. The lift hip exhibits a rangeof active

abduction of 54degree. Hence, there is loss of 50% of abduction

movementoftherighthip.Thepercentagelossofmobilitycomponent

inthehipis50,0.30or15%lossofmotionforthemobilitycomponent.

If morethanone joint is involved,samemethodis appliedandthe

lossesineachoftheaffectedjointsareadded.

Example

Lossofabductionofthehip=60%

Lossofextensionftheknee=40%

Lossofrangeofmotionforthemobilitycomponent

=(60x0.30)+(40x0.03)=30%.

PrinciplesofEvaluationofMuscleStrength:

1.Thevalueformaximummusclestrengthinthelegis90%.

2.Strengthofmusclescanbetestedbymanualtestinglike05grading.

3.Manualmusclegradingscanbegivenpercentageslike

Grade0=100%

Grade1=80%

Grade2=60%

Grade3=40%

Grade4=20%

Grade5=0%


4.Meanpercentageofmusclestrengthlossismultipliedby0.30.

5.Iftherehasbeenalossofmusclestrengthofmorethanonejoint,the

valuesareaddedashasbeendescribedforlossofrangeofmotion.

CombiningValuesfortheMobilityComponent:

Letusassumethattheindividualwithafractureoftherighthipjoint

hasinadditionto16%lossofmotion8%lossofstrengthofmuscles.

CombingValues:

Motion16%,Strength8%

=16+8(9016)/90=22.6%

Where'a'=highervalue,'b'=lowervalue.

STABILITYCOMPONENT:

1.Totalvalueofstabilitycomponentis90%

2.Itistestedby2methods

3.Basedonscalemethod.

4.Basedonclinicalmethod

Threedifferentreadings(inkilograms)aretakenmeasuringthetotal

bodyweight(W),scaleAreadingandscaleBreading.Thefinalvalue

isobtainedbytheformula:

DifferenceinbodyweightdividedbyTotalbodyweight,multipliedby

90.

Intheclinicalmethodofevaluationninedifferentactivitiesaretobe

testedasgivenintheproforma.Eachactivityhasavalueoftenpercent

(10%).


5.3.3.4. Guidelines for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment of

Trunk(Spine):

Thelocaleffectsoflesionsofspinecanbedividedintotraumaticand

nontraumaticlesions.

TRAUMATICLESIONS

CervicalSpineFracture

Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of

PhysicalFunctiontoWholeBody.

A.Vertebralcompression25%,oneortwovertebraladjacentbodies,no

fragmentation, no involvement of posterior elements, no nerve root

involvement,moderateneckrigidityandpersistentsoreness.

B. Posterior elements with Xray evidence of moderate partial

dislocation.

(a)Nonerverootinvolvement,healed15

(b)Withpersistentpain,withmildmotorandsensoryManifestations

25

(c)Withfusion,healednopermanentmotororsensorychanges25

C.Severedislocation,fairtogoodreductionwithsurgicalfusion

(a)Noresidualmotororsensorychanges25

(b) Poor reduction with fusion, persistent radicular pain, motor

involvement,onlyslightweaknessandnumbness35

(c)Sameas(b)withpartialparalysis,determineadditionalratingfor

lossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters.

CervicalIntervertebralDisc:


1.Operative,successfulremovalofdisc,withreliefofacutepain,no

fusion,noneurologicalresidual10

2. Same as (1) with neurological manifestations, persistent pain,

numbness,weaknessinfingers20

ThoracicandDorsolumbarSpineFracture:

Percent Whole body Permanent Physical Impairment and Loss of

PhysicalFunctiontoWholeBody

A.Compression25%,involvingoneortwovertebralbodies,mild,no

fragmentation,healednoneurologicalmanifestations.10

B.Compression50%,withinvolvementposteriorelements,healed,no

neurologicalmanifestations,persistentpain,fusionindicated.20

C.Sameas(B)withfusion,painonlyonheavyuseofback.20

D.Totalparaplegia.100

E. Posteriorelements,partialparalysiswithorwithoutfusion,should

beratedforlossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters.

LowLumbar:

1.Fracture

2.Vertebralcompression25%,oneortwoadjacentvertebralbodies,

littleorfragmentation,nodefinitepatternorneurologicalchanges.15

3.Compressionwithfragmentationposteriorelements,persistentpain,

weaknessandstiffness,healed,nofusion,noliftingover25pounds

40

4.Sameas(B),healedwithfusion,mildpain20


5.Sameas(B),nerverootinvolvementtolowerextermities,determine

additionalratingforlossofindustrialfunctiontoextremities

6. Same as (c), with fragmentation of posterior elements, with

persistentpainafterfusion,noneurologicfindings30

7.Sameas(c),withnerverootinvolvementtolowerextremities,rate

withfunctionallosstoextremities

8.Totalparaplegia100

9.Posteriorelements,partialparalysiswithorwithoutfusion,should

beratedforlossofuseofextremitiesandsphincters.

@.NeurogenicLowBackPainDiscInjury

A.Periodicacuteepisodeswithacutepainandpersistentbodylist,tests

forsciaticpainpositive,temporaryrecovery5to8weeks50

B.Surgicalexcisionofdisc,nofusion,goodresults,nopersistentsciatic

pain10

C.Surgicalexcisionofdisc, nofusion,moderatepersistentpainand

stiffness aggravated by heavy lifting with necessary modification of

activities20

D.Surgicalexcisionofdiscwithfusion,activitiesofliftingmoderately

modified15

E.Surgical excisionof discwith fusion,persistentpainandstiffness

aggravatedbyheavylifting,necessitatingmodificationofallactivities

requiringheavylifting25


NONTRAUMATICLESIONS:

Scoliosis

ThewholeSpinehasbeengivenratingof100%andregionwisethe

followingpercentagesaregiven:

DorsalSpine50%

LumbarSpine30%

CervicalSpine20%

Kobbsmethodformeasurementofangleofcurveinstandingposition

istobeused.Thecurveshavebeendividedintothreesubgroups:

Particulars Cervical Spine

Thoracic spine Lumber Spine

30degree (Mild)

2.00% 5.00% 6.00%

30-60degree (Moderate)

3.00% 15.00% 12.00%

Above 60degree (Severe)

5.00% 25.00% 33.00%

Inthecurvesrangingabove600,cardiopulmonarycomplicationsare

to be graded separately. The junctional curves are to be given that

ratingdependinguponlevelofapexofcurve.Forexample,ifapexof

dorsolumbarcurvefallsinthedorsalspinethecurvecanbetakenasa

dorsal curve. When the scoliosis is adequately compensated, 5%

reductionistobegivenfromfinalrating(forallassessmentprimary

curvesareconsideredforrating).


Kyphosis

Thesametotalrating(100%)asthatsuggestedforscoliosisistobe

givenforkyphosis.Regionwisepercentagesofphysicalimpairmentare:

DorsalSpine50%

CervicalSpine30%

LumbarSpine20%

Fordorsalspinethefollowingfurthergradingsare:

Lessthan20degree10%

21degree40degree15%

41degree60degree20%

Above60degree25%

Forkyphosisoflumbarandcervicalspine5%and7%respectivelyhave

beenallocated.

ParalysisofFlexors&ExtensorsofDorsalandLumbarSpine:

Themotorpowerofthesemusclestobegroupedasfollows:

Normal

Weak 5%

Paralysed 10%

ParalysisofMusclesofCervicalSpine:

Particulars Normal Weak ParalysedFlexors 0 5.00% 10.00%Extensors 0 5.00% 10.00%Rotation 0 5.00% 10.00%Side Bending 0 5.00% 10.00%


Miscellaneous:

Thoseconditionsofthespinewhichcausestiffnessandpartetc.,are

ratedasfollows:

A. Subjective symptoms of pain, No involuntary muscle spasm, Not

substantiatedbydemonstrablestructuralpathology. 0

B.Pain,Persistentmusclespasmandstiffnessofspine,substantiatedby

demonstrableandradiologicalchanges. 10%

C.SameasB,withmoderateradiologicalchanges. 15%

D.SameasB,withsevereradiologicalchangesinvolvinganyoneofthe

regionofspine(cervical,dorsalorlumbar) 20%

E.SameasD,involvingwholespine 30%

In Kyphoscoliosis, both curves to be assessed separately and then

percentageofdisabilitytobesummed.


Amputees:

BasicGuidelines:

1. In case of multiple amputees, if the total sum of percentage

permanentphysicalimpairmentisabove100%,itshouldbetakenas

100%.

2.Amputationatanylevelwithuncorrectableinabilitytowearanduse

prosthesis,shouldbegiven100%permanentphysicalimpairment.

3.Incaseofamputationinmorethanonelimbpercentageofeachlimb

is counted and another 10%will be added, but when only toes or

fingersareinvolvedonlyanother5%willbeadded.

4.Anycomplicationinformofstiffness,neuroma,infectionetc.hasto


begivenatotalof10%additionalweightage.

5.Dominantupperlimbhasbeengiven4%extrapercentage.

UpperLimbAmputation:

Sr. No Particulars of Amputation Permanent Partial Impairment, in %

1 Fore-quarter 1002 Shoulder Disarticulation 903 Above Elbow upto upper 1/3 of

arm85

4 Above Elbow upto lower 1/3 of arm

80

5 Elbow Disarticulation 756 Below Elbow upto upper 1/3 of

forearm70

7 Below Elbow upto lower 1/3 of forearm

65

8 Wrist Disarticulation 609 Hand through carpal bones 5510 Thumb through C.M. or through

1st M.C. Joint 30

11 Thumb Disarticulation through metacarpophalangeal joint or through proximal phalanx

25

12 Thumb Disarticulation through inter phalangeal joint or through distal phalanx

15


AmputationofFinger:

Particulars IIndex Finger

Middle Finger

Ring Finger

Little Finger

Amputation through proximal phalanx or disarticulation through MP joint

115.00% 5.00% 3.00% 2.00%

Amputation through middle phalanx or disarticulation through PIP joint

110.00% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00%

Amputation through distal phalanx or disarticulation through DIP joint

55.00% 2.00% 1.00% 1.00%

LowerLimbAmputations:

1. Hindquarter 100%2. Hipdisarticulation 90%3. Abovekneeuptoupper1/3ofthigh85%4. Abovekneeuptolower1/3ofthigh80%5. Throughkeen 75%6. B.K.upto8cm 70%7. B.K.uptolower1/3ofleg 60%8. Throughankle 55%9. Syme's 50%10. Uptomidfoot 40%11. Uptoforefoot 30%12. Alltoes 20%13. Lossoffirsttoe 10%14. Lossofsecondtoe 5%15. Lossofthirdtoe 4%16. Lossoffourthtoe 3%17. Lossoffifthtoe 2%


5.4Whatshouldbetheamountofcompassioninthecaseswhereinjured

lostoneofthelimb(amputation):

5.4.1. Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofGovindYadavv/sN.I.A.Com.,

reportedin2012(1)TAC1(SC)=2012ACJ28(SC)hasheldthatas

thecostoflivingandcostofartificiallimb(prosthetic)hassubstantially

increasedand,therefore,Rs.2,00,000/tobeawardedunderthesaid

head.Rs.1,50,000/eachtobeawardedundertheheadsofpain,shock

&sufferingsandspecialdiet,attendance&transportationandlossof

amenities and enjoyment of life, respectively. And if injured is

unmarried and his/her prospects for marriage have considerably

reduced,Rs.1,00,000/maybeawarded.

5.5WhetherDependantsoftheinjuredclaimantwhodiedhisnaturaldeath

duringthependencyoftheclaimpetitionareentitledtogetanyamountof

compensation:

5.5.1. MaximActioPersonalisMoriturcumPersonaisapplicablein

suchcases.EvenprovisionsofSection306(alongwithIllustrations)of

IndianSuccessionAct, 1925wouldapply. InthecasesofPravabati

Ghosh&Anr.Vs.GautamDas&Ors.,reportedin2006(Suppl)1GLT

15,relyingontheratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleApexCourtinthecase

ofMelepurathSankunniEzuthassanv/sThekittilGeopalankuttyNair,

reportedin1986(1)SCC118,andthecaseofM.Veerappav/sEvelyn

Sequeria&Ors.,reportedin1988(1)SCC556,hasheldinparagraph8

ofthejudgmentthus:

therighttosuewillnotsurviveinfavourofhisrepresentatives,for,


insuchanappeal,whatthelegalrepresentativesofsuchaclaimant

wouldbedoingistoaskforcompensationandtherighttoaskfor

compensationtobeawardeddoesnotsurviveiftheclaimantdies

before the claim for compensation is awardedor decreed in his

favour,thecauseofdeathnotbeingtheinjuriessustainedbythe

deceasedclaimant.

5.5.2. From the above referred ratio it becomes clear that if the

claimantdiesbeforetheclaimforcompensationisawardedordecreed

in his favour is passed, claim petition at the behest of the legal

representativeofthesuchinjuredclaimantisnotmaintainable.


6.Howtodeterminemonthlyincomeofthedeceasedorinjuredwhenno

documentinsupportthereofisnotproduced:

6.1 InthecaseofGovindYadav(supra),paraNo.17ithasbeenheldthat

whenthereisnoproofofincome,incomeofthedeceasedorinjured

claimant shall be decided by taking into consideration prevalence

minimumwages.

6.2 SeveralStateGovernmenthaveissuednotificationsoftherelatingto

MinimumWagesAct,1948(hereinafterreferredas'1948Act').Details

ofsuchnotificationsareunder:

6.2.1. Governments of National Territory of Delhi has revised

minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees

covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 12.09.2008,

effectivefrom01.08.2008.

Categories Rates in Rupees

Dearness Allowance

Rates per month

Rates per Day

Un-Skilled 3633 50 3683 142Semi Skilled 3799 50 3849 148Skilled 4057 50 4107 158

6.2.2. Rates applicable to Clerical and NonTechnical Supervisory

Staff:

Categories Rates in Rupees

Dearness Allowance

Rates per month

Rates per Day

Non-matriculates

3826 50 3876 149

Matriculates but not graduates

4081 50 4131 159

Graduates and above

4393 50 4443 171


6.2.3. Government of National Territory of Delhi has revised

minimum rates of wages applicable to all Scheduled Employees

covered under the 1948 Act, vide Notification dated 26.07.2011,

effectivefrom01.04.2011.

Occupation Wages per month in Rupees

Wages per day in Rupees

Un-Skilled:- Peon, Watchman, Sweeper, Waterman, Cleaner etc.

6422 247

Semi-Skilled:- Bus conductor, Asst. Electrician, Asst. Plumber, Asst. Carpenter etc.

7098 273

Skilled:- Liberian, Lab Assistant, Driver, Physical Instructor, Electrician, Plumber, Carpenter etc.

7826 301

Non-matriculates 7098 273Matriculates but not graduates 7826 301Graduates and above 8502 327

6.2.4.Government of Gujarat has fixed the following rates (in Rupees) as minimum Wages, w.e.f. 01.04.2013.

Workers/Employees Category of Workers Basis Rates per Day

D.A. per day

Total per day

Agriculture - 100 No Provision

100

Other Schedule Employees

Un-Skilled 130-135 70 200-205


Semi-Skilled 135-140 70 205-210


Skilled 140-150 70 210-220

6.2.5. Data prior to 2008 is not available but it may be obtained from the office of Labour Commissioner.


7. Howtodetermineincomeof thedeceasedor injuredclaimantwhen

thereis documentaryevidenceonrecordtoshowthat thedeceasedor

injuredclaimantwasearninginforeigncurrencyandnotinIndianRupee:

7.1 Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofUnitedIndiaInsuranceCo.Ltdv/s

S.Malarvizhi,decidedon6June,2013hasheldthatwhenthedeceased

orinjuredclaimantwasgettingsalaryinforeigncurrency,theninsuch

situationsuchforeignsalary/incomeshouldbeconvertedinto Indian

Rupee,attheratesapplicableatthetimeofaccidentanddeductionof

higherpercentageof60%oftheincomeandlowmultipliershouldbe

applied.

7.2 ReferencemayalsobemadetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofInthe

caseof United India InsuranceCom.Ltd. v/s Patricia JeanMahajan,

reportedin2002(6)SCC281=2002ACJ1481=2002(4)Supreme

518.SaidcasebeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtaroseoutofaclaim

madeonbehalfoftheDoctorofIndianoriginwhobecametheAmerican

citizenandwaskilled inaroadaccidentwhenhevisitedIndia. The

claim for compensation was based upon the income in the foreign

countryandwhileconsideringthesaidcase,amongotherthings,the

Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthatthetotalamountofcompensation

would work out to Rs.16.12 crores with interest and looking to the

IndianEconomy,fiscalandfinancialsituation,theamountiscertainlya

fabulousamountthoughinthebackgroundofAmericanconditionsit

maynotbeso.Itwasfurtherheldthatwhenthereissomuchdisparity

in theeconomicconditionsandaffluenceof twoplacesviz. place to


whichthevictimbelongandtheplaceatwhichthecompensationisto

bepaid, a goldenbalancemust bestrucksomewhere, toarriveat a

reasonableandfaircompensation.LookingbytheIndianstandardsthey

maynotbemuchtooovercompensatedandsimilarlynotverymuch

undercompensatedaswell, inthebackgroundofthecountrywhere

mostofthedependentbeneficiariesreside.


8. How to decide a claim petition where defence of Invalid, Learners

Licence & Fake Driving Licence and Defense of Qualification/Badge is

taken:

8.1 ReferenceisrequiredtobemadetoratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApex

CourtinthecaseofNationalInsuranceCom.Ltd.V/sSwaranSingh,

reportedinAIR2004SC1531, in ParaNo.105it hasbeenheldas

under:

105:Thesummaryofourfindingstothevariousissuesasraisedin

thesepetitionsareasfollows:

(i)ChapterXIoftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988providingcompulsory

insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare

legislationtoextendrelief bycompensationtovictimsof accidents

caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory

insurancecoverageofallvehiclesarewiththisparamountobjectand

theprovisionsoftheActhavetobesointerpretedastoeffectuatethe

saidobject.

(ii)Insurerisentitledtoraiseadefenceinaclaimpetitionfiledunder

Section163AorSection166oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988inter

aliaintermsofSection149(2)(a)(ii)ofthesaidAct.

(iii)Thebreachofpolicyconditione.g.disqualificationofdriveror

invaliddrivinglicenceofthedriver,ascontainedinsubsection(2)(a)

(ii)ofSection149,havetobeprovedtohavebeencommittedbythe

insuredforavoiding liabilitybythe insurer.Mereabsence, fakeor

invaliddrivinglicenceordisqualificationofthedriverfordrivingat

the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the


insureragainsteithertheinsuredorthethirdparties.Toavoidits

liabilitytowardsinsured,theinsurerhastoprovethattheinsured

wasguiltyofnegligenceandfailedtoexercisereasonablecareinthe

matteroffulfillingtheconditionofthepolicyregardinguseofvehicles

bydulylicenseddriveroronewhowasnotdisqualifiedtodriveatthe

relevanttime.

(iv)Theinsurancecompaniesare,however,withaviewtoavoidtheir

liabilitymustnotonlyestablishtheavailabledefence(s)raisedinthe

saidproceedingsbutmustalsoestablish'breach'onthepartofthe

ownerofthevehicle;theburdenofproofwhereforewouldbeonthem.

(v)Thecourtcannotlaydownanycriteriaastohowsaidburden

wouldbedischarged,inasmuchasthesamewoulddependuponthe

factsandcircumstancesofeachcase.

(vi)Evenwheretheinsurerisabletoprovebreachonthepartofthe

insuredconcerningthepolicyconditionregardingholdingofavalid

licencebythedriverorhisqualificationtodriveduringtherelevant

period,theinsurerwouldnotbeallowedtoavoiditsliabilitytowards

insuredunlessthesaidbreachorbreachesontheconditionofdriving

licenceis/aresofundamentalasarefoundtohavecontributedtothe

cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy

conditionswouldapply"theruleofmainpurpose"andtheconceptof

"fundamentalbreach"toallowdefencesavailabletotheinsuredunder

Section149(2)oftheAct.

(vii)Thequestionastowhethertheownerhastakenreasonablecare

tofindoutastowhetherthedrivinglicenceproducedbythedriver,(a


fakeoneorotherwise),doesnotfulfiltherequirementsoflawornot

willhavetobedeterminedineachcase.

(viii) If a vehicle at the timeof accident was drivenby a person

havingalearner'slicence,theinsurancecompanieswouldbeliableto

satisfythedecree.

(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with

Section168isempoweredtoadjudicateallclaimsinrespectofthe

accidentsinvolvingdeathorofbodilyinjuryordamagetopropertyof

thirdpartyarising inuseof motorvehicle. Thesaidpowerof the

tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between

claimantorclaimantsononesideandinsured,insureranddriveron

theother.Inthecourseofadjudicatingtheclaimforcompensation

andtodecidetheavailabilityofdefenceordefencestotheinsurer,the

Tribunalhasnecessarilythepowerandjurisdictiontodecidedisputes

intersebetweeninsurerandtheinsured.Thedecisionrenderedonthe

claimsanddisputesintersebetweentheinsurerandinsuredinthe

courseof adjudicationof claimforcompensationby theclaimants

and theawardmadethereon is enforceable andexecutable in the

samemannerasprovidedinSection174oftheActforenforcement

andexecutionoftheawardinfavouroftheclaimants.

(x)WhereonadjudicationoftheclaimundertheActthetribunal

arrivesataconclusionthattheinsurerhassatisfactorilyprovedits

defence inaccordance with theprovisions of Sections 149(2)read

withsubsection(7),asinterpretedbythisCourtabove,theTribunal

candirectthattheinsurerisliabletobereimbursedbytheinsuredfor


thecompensationandotheramountswhichithasbeencompelledto

pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such

determinationofclaimbytheTribunalwill beenforceableandthe

moneyfoundduetotheinsurerfromtheinsuredwillberecoverable

onacertificateissuedbythetribunaltotheCollectorinthesame

mannerunderSection174oftheActasarrearsaslandrevenue.The

certificatewillbeissuedfortherecoveryasarrearsoflandrevenue

onlyif,asrequiredbysubsection(3)ofSection168oftheActthe

insuredfailstodeposittheamountawardedinfavouroftheinsurer

withinthirtydaysfromthedateofannouncementoftheawardby

thetribunal.

(xi) The provisions contained in subsection (4) with proviso

thereunderandsubsection(5)whichareintendedtocoverspecified

contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover

amountpaidunderthecontractofinsuranceonbehalfoftheinsured

canbetakenrecourseofbytheTribunalandbeextendedtoclaims

anddefences of insurer against insuredby relegating themto the

remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and

circumstancesadjudicationoftheirclaimsintersemightdelaythe

adjudicationoftheclaimsofthevictims.

8.2 Barereadingofabovereferredobservationsmakesit clear

thatmereabsence,fakeorinvaliddrivinglicenceordisqualification

ofthedriverfordrivingattherelevanttime,arenotinthemselves

defencesavailabletotheinsureragainsteithertheinsuredorthe


thirdparties.Toavoiditsliabilitytowardsinsured,theinsurerhas

toprovethatthe insuredwasguiltyof negligenceandfailedto

exercisereasonablecareinthematteroffulfillingtheconditionof

thepolicyregardinguseofvehiclesbydulylicenseddriverorone

who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The

insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their

liabilitymustnotonlyestablishtheavailabledefence(s)raisedin

thesaidproceedingsbutmustalsoestablish'breach'onthepartof

theownerofthevehicle;theburdenofproofwhereforewouldbe

onthem.Evenwheretheinsurerisabletoprovebreachonthepart

oftheinsuredconcerningthepolicyconditionregardingholdingof

avalidlicencebythedriverorhisqualificationtodriveduringthe

relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its

liabilitytowardsinsuredunlessthesaidbreachorbreachesonthe

conditionofdrivinglicenceis/aresofundamentalasarefoundto

havecontributed to the cause of the accident. TheTribunals in

interpretingthepolicyconditionswouldapply"theruleof main

purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow

defencesavailabletotheinsuredunderSection149(2)oftheAct.

Ifavehicleatthetimeofaccidentwasdrivenbyapersonhavinga

learner'slicence,theinsurancecompanieswouldbeliabletosatisfy

thedecree.

8.3 It is also held in Para 105 (ix) and (x) that Tribunal is

empowered topass andorder toPayandRecover against the

insurer.


8.4Asfaras,defenceofinsurerquathequalification/badgeofthe

licence is concern, same can be decided by relying upon para

Nos.42,43&84oftheSwaranSingh'scase.Paras42,43&84

readsasunder:

42.Ifapersonhasbeengivenalicenceforaparticulartypeof

vehicleasspecifiedtherein,hecannotbesaidtohavenolicencefor

drivinganothertypeofvehiclewhichisofthesamecategorybutof

differenttype.Asforexamplewhenapersonisgrantedalicence

fordrivingalightmotorvehiclehecandriveeitheracarorajeep

anditisnotnecessarythathemusthavedrivinglicencebothfor

carandjeepseparately.

43.Furthermore,theinsurancecompanywithaviewtoavoidits

liabilities is not only required to showthat the conditions laid

downunderSection149(2)(a)or(b)aresatisfiedbutisfurther

requiredtoestablishthattherehasbeenabreachonthepartof

theinsured.Byreasonoftheprovisionscontainedinthe1988Act,

amoreextensiveremedyhasbeenconferreduponthosewhohave

obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a

certificateofinsuranceisdeliveredintermsofSection147(3)a

thirdpartyhasobtainedajudgmentagainstanypersoninsuredby

thepolicyinrespectofaliabilityrequiredtobecoveredbySection

145,thesamemustbesatisfiedbythe insurer,notwithstanding

thattheinsurermaybeentitledtoavoidortocancelthepolicyor

mayinfacthavedoneso.Thesameobligationappliesinrespectof

ajudgmentagainstapersonnotinsuredbythepolicyinrespectof


suchaliability,butwhowouldhavebeencoveredifthepolicyhad

coveredtheliabilityofallpersons,exceptthatinrespectofliability

fordeathorbodilyinjury.

84. Section3oftheActcastsanobligationonadrivertohold

aneffectivedrivinglicenceforthetypeofvehiclewhichheintends

to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to

prescribeformsofdrivinglicencesforvariouscategoriesofvehicles

mentionedinsubsection(2)ofsaidsection.Thevarioustypesof

vehiclesdescribedforwhichadrivermayobtainalicenceforone

ormoreofthemare:(a)Motorcyclewithoutgear,(b)motorcycle

with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e)

transportvehicle, (f)roadroller,and(g)motorvehicleofother

specifieddescription.ThedefinitionclauseinSection2oftheAct

definesvariouscategoriesofvehicleswhicharecoveredinbroad

typesmentionedinsubsection(2)ofSection10.Theyare'goods

carriage', 'heavygoods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motorvehicle',

'invalidcarriage', 'lightmotorvehicle', 'maxicab', 'mediumgoods

vehicle', 'medium passenger motorvehicle', 'motorcab',

'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semitrailer',

'touristvehicle','tractor','trailer',and'transportvehicle'.Inclaims

for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with

regardtotheconditionsofdrivinglicencesariseforconsideration

before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for

'motorcyclewithoutgear',forwhichhehasnolicence.Casesmay

alsoarisewhereaholderofdrivinglicencefor'lightmotorvehicle'


is foundtobedrivinga 'maxicab', 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for

whichhehasno licence.Ineachcaseonevidence ledbeforethe

Tribunal,adecisionhastobetakenwhetherthefactofthedriver

possessinglicenceforonetypeofvehiclebutfounddrivinganother

typeofvehicle,wasthemainorcontributorycauseofaccident.If

onfacts,itisfoundthataccidentwascausedsolelybecauseofsome

otherunforeseenorinterveningcauseslikemechanicalfailuresand

similarothercauseshavingnonexuswithdrivernotpossessing

requisitetypeoflicence,theinsurerwillnotbeallowedtoavoidits

liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning

drivinglicence.

8.4 Meaning thereby, even if driver of offending vehicle was not

qualifiedtoplytheoffendingvehicleorwasnothavingtherequired

badgetoplysuchvehiclethenalsoinsurerisliabletopayamountof

compensation.Beforepassinganyorder,Tribunalhastodecidewhether

thefactofthedriverpossessinglicenceforonetypeofvehiclebutfound

drivinganothertypeofvehicle,wasthemainorcontributorycauseof

accident.Ifonfacts,itisfoundthataccidentwascausedsolelybecause

ofsomeotherunforeseenorinterveningcauseslikemechanicalfailures

andsimilar othercauseshavingnonexuswithdrivernotpossessing

requisitetypeof licence, the insurerwill notbeallowedtoavoid its

liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving

licence.

8.5 Reference is alsorequiredtobemadetotherecentdecisionof


Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofS.Iyyapanv/sUnitedIndiaInsurance

Com.Ltd.,dated01.07.2013.Wherein,afterreferringseveralratiosof

Hon'bleApexCourt,ithasbeenheldinParaNo.19that:

In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding

a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no

disputethatthemotorvehicleinquestion,bywhichaccidenttook

place,wasMahindraMaxiCab.Merelybecausethedriverdidnotget

anyendorsementinthedrivinglicencetodriveMahindraMaxiCab,

whichisalightmotorvehicle,theHighCourthascommittedgrave

error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay

compensationbecausethedriverwasnotholdingthelicencetodrive

thecommercialvehicle.Theimpugnedjudgmentis,therefore,liable

tobesetaside.

8.6 Eveninthecaseof NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.Roshanben

RahemanshaFakir,reportedinAIR2008SC2266,ithasbeenheldthat

whendriverofoffendingvehiclewasholderoflicenceofthreewheeler

i.e.autorickshawdeliveryvanandhislicencewasnotmeantfordriving

'transport vehicle' but for goods carryingpublic carrier, in suchcase

Insurerisnotliablebutdirectedtheinsurertofirstpayentireamountof

compensationwitha further direction to recover thesame fromthe

insured(thesedirectionswereissuedunderArticle142ofConstitution

ofIndia).


9. In whichcircumstances, Insurer is liable to paycompensationwhen

injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicle:

9.1 It is the duty of the insurer to prove that injured claimant or

deceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleand,therefore, it isnot

liable topayamountofcompensation,unless, samehasbeenprove,

insurerisliabletopayamountofcompensation.

9.2 Todecidewhether,injuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellingin

thegoodsvehicleornot, Panchnamaofsceneofaccidentplaysvery

vitalrole.If,afterreadingPanchnama,itappearsthatthereweregoods

loadedinthevehicleorwerefoundlyingatthesightofaccidentthenit

canbepresumedthatvehiclewasusedforcarryinggoods.However,

there are some points, which are required to be considered before

fasteningliabilityoninsurer,whichare:

9.2.1Whetherinjuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginthe

cabinofthegoodsvehicleornot.If,injuredclaimantordeceased

wastravellinginthecabinofthegoods,insurerisliableotherwise

not.ReferencebemadetoratiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourt

inthecaseofNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd.v/sCholletiBharatamma,

reportedinAIR2008SC484.


9.2.2Whethertheinsurerisliableinacasewheretheinjuredclaimantor

deceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleasthelaboureroftheowneror

thehirer:

9.2.2.1. If it is proved that injured claimant or deceased was

travellinginthegoodsvehicleasthelaboureroftheownerofthe

goods then insurer is liable to pay amount of compensation,

provided additional premium of labourer/collie is paid by the

ownerbut insurerisnotliable inthesuchcaseswhereinjured

claimantordeceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleasthe

labourerofthehirer.Referencebemadetotheratiolaiddownin

thecaseofSanjeevKumarSamratv/sNationalInsuranceCo.Ltd,

reportedinAIR2013SCW301,whereinitisheldthat:

theActpolicydoesnotcoverallkindsofemployees.Thus,onacontextualreading

oftheprovision,schematicanalysisoftheActandtheWorkmen'sCompensation

Act,1923itisquitelimpidthatthestatutorypolicyonlycoverstheemployeesofthe

insured,eitheremployedorengagedbyhiminagoodscarriage.Itdoesnotcover

any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an

authorizedagentinplaceoftheownerofgoods,andclaimstobeanemployeeofthe

ownerofgoods,cannotbecoveredbythestatutorypolicy.

9.3 Whether insurer is liable in the case where injured claimant or

deceasedwastravellinginthegoodsvehicleastheownerorrepresentative

ofthegoods:

9.3.1. If it is proved that the injured claimant or deceased was

travellinginthegoodsvehicleastheownerorrepresentativeofthe


goods,insurerisliabletopayamountofcompensationotherwisenot.

ReferencebemadetoratiolaidowninthecaseofNewIndiaInsurance

Companyv/sDarshanaDevi,reportedinAIR2008(Supp)SC1639.

9.4WhetherinjuredclaimantordeceasedwastravellinginTractor/trolley

isentitledtogetamountofcompensation:

9.4.1 Normally,Tractortrailer/trolleyisusedforagriculturalpurpose

andifitfoundthatsamewasusedforagriculturalpurposeandsameis

coveredbythe'FarmerComprehensivePolicy'orthe'FarmerPackage

Policy',insuchsituation,insurerisliabletopaycompensation.Ifthe

abovereferredtwoconditionsarenotfulfilled,insurercannotbeheld

responsibletopayamountofcompensation.

9.4.2 It is also tobenotedthat inthe Annexure of IndianMotor

Tariff,listofMiscellaneousandSpecialtypesofvehiclesisgiven.Asper

the said list tractors can be used for Agricultural and if Trolley is

attachedtosuchTractor,samemaybeusedforcarryinggoods.Asper

the said list there is one another kind of Tractor, which is 'Traction

EngineTractor'.Ifisfoundthattractorisnotusedforthepurposeof

agriculturalworkandifitusedforcarryinggoods,suchtractortrolley

mustbeinsuredforsuchpurposeandifisnotinsuredassuch,insureris

notliabletopayanyamountofcompensation.

9.5 Ittobenotedthatwheninsurancepolicycontains'Avoidance

Clause', theninsuchsituation,insureris liabletopaycompensation


undertheprincipleof'PayandRecover'.Referencemaybemadetothe

ratiolaiddowninthecaseof NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.Vimal,

Devi, reportedin 2010ACJ2878andratiolaiddownbytheHon'ble

Full Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben

Vankarv/sYakubbhaiPatel,reportedin2012ACJ2715.

9.6.However,itistobenotedthattheissuewithrespecttopassingan

orderof'PayandRecover'ispendingforconsiderationbeforetheFull

BenchofHon'bleApexCourt.Referencebemadetojudgmentdelivered

inthecaseofNationalInsurancecom.Ltd.v/sParvathneni,reprtedin

2009(3)GLH377(SC).


10. Liability of insurer to pay compensation in the cases where injured

claimant or deceased was travelling in the private car as occupants or

travellingontwowheeleraspillionrider:

10.1.Intherecentdecision,Hon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofNational

InsuranceCompanyLtd.v.Balakrishnan,reportedinAIR2013SC473

hasheldinparaNo.21that:

comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the

insurerforpaymentofcompensationfortheoccupantinacar.There

isnocavilthatan"ActPolicy"standsonadifferentfootingfroma

"Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the

positionvery clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory

authority, has commandedthe insurance companies stating that a

"Comprehensive/PackagePolicy"coverstheliability,therecannotbe

anydisputeinthatregard.Wemayhastentoclarifythattheearlier

pronouncementswererendered inrespect of the "Act Policy" which

admittedlycannotcoverathirdpartyriskofanoccupantinacar.

But, if thepolicy isa"Comprehensive/PackagePolicy", theliability

wouldbecovered.

10.1.1.InviewoftheobservationsmadebyHon'bleApexCourtin

the case of Balakrishnan (supra), occupant of private car or the

pillion rider of two wheeler is entitled to recover amount of

compensationfrominsurer,providedtheoffendingvehicleiscovered

with the 'Comprehensive/ Package Policy'. Reference may also be

madetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofOrientalInsuranceCompany

Ltd.v.SurendraNathLoomba,reportedinAIR2013SC483.


11.Howtodecideaclaimpetitionpreferredundersection163Aofthe

Act:

11.1. AspertheratiolaiddowninthecaseofDeepalGirishbhaiSoniand

Ors.v.UnitedIndiaInsuranceCo.Ltd.,Baroda(2004)5SCC385 =

AIR2004SC2107, Hon'ble Full Benchof ApexCourt hasheld that

claim petition preferred u/s 163A is under 'No Fault Liability'.

Whereas, in thecaseof National InsuranceCompanyLtd. v. Sinitha,

reported in AIR2012SC797, Hon'ble SupremeCourt hasheld that

claimpetitionpreferredu/s163Aisunder'FaultLiability'.

11.2. ItdoesnotbecomeclearfromthefactsoftheofDeepalGirishbhai

Soni's(supra)caseastowhether,morethanonevehicleswereinvolved

inthesaidaccidentornotbutfromthereadingoftheSinitha's(supra)

case, it becomes clear that there was only onevehicle involvedand

questionwhichwasrequiredtobedecidedbyHon'bleApexCourtasto

whether, insurer hassucceeded inprovingthat claimanthimself was

negligentincausingtheaccidentornot.

11.3. Fromthereadingofboththeabovereferredratios,itappearsthat

thereareconflictingviewsand,therefore,eachclaimpetitionmaybe

decidedonthebasisofit'sfacts.Thatistosay,ifonlyonevehicleis

involved,pointofnegligencemustbedecided.

11.4. Itistobenotedthatinaclaimpetition,preferredu/s163Aofthe

Act,incomeoftheinjuredclaimantorthedeceasedshouldnotbemore

thatRs.40,000/perannum.If,theincomeoftheinjuredclaimantor


the deceased is more that Rs.40,000/ per annum, in such cases,

claimant/smaybegivenanoptiontoconvertthesameunderSection

166 of the Act. If claim petition is not converted, even after the

order/direction,samebedismissed.Inthisregardsreferencemanybe

madetoratiolaiddowninthecaseofDeepalGirishbhaiSoni(supra).

11.5. ItalsorequiredtobenotedthatintheFatalinjurycases,multiplier

cannot be appliedas same is appliedonly in the cases whereclaim

petition is preferredby the injured. Referencebe made to ratio laid

down in the case of National Company Ltd. Versus Gurumallamma,

reported in AIR 2009 SCW 7434, para No.8. Similar kind of

observationsaremadebyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofSarlaVerma

(supra),atParaNo.17(pageNo.3112inAIR),whichreadsunder:

...Therefore,wheretheapplicationisundersection163AoftheAct,

it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured

formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with

referencetotheannualincomeofthedeceased,orismorethanRs.

40,000/byapplyingtheformula:(2/3xA1xM),thatistwo

thirdsoftheannualincomemultipliedbythemultiplierapplicable

totheageofthedeceasedwouldbethecompensation.

11.6. Fromtheabovereferredratios,laiddownbyHon'bleApexCourt,it

becomesamplyclearthatTribunalisnotrequiredtomakecalculationof

compensationonthebasisof applicationofmultiplier.ButTribunalis

onlyrequiredtograntcompensationasperScheduleII of theMotor


VehicleAct,takingintoconsideringtheageandincomeofthedeceased

andfigureshownagainsttheageandincomeofthedeceased.Foran

example,if,monthlyincomeofthedeceasedwhowasagedabout48

years at the time of accident, is assessed as Rs.2,500/ per month

(Rs.30,000/perannum),howthecompensationshouldbecalculated.

Since Rs.30,000/ per annum is not shown anywhere in column of

ANNUAL INCOME of the Second Schedule of the Act, now, the

question,ishowtheamountofcompensationtobecalculated.Insuch

cases,averageoffiguresintheincomegroupofRs.24,000/perannum

and Rs.36,000/ per annum i.e Rs.2,86,000/ and Rs.4,32,000,

respectively are required to be taken into consideration. Average of

Rs.2,86,000/andRs.4,32,000,comestoRs.3,59,000.Outofthesaid

amountof3,59,000,1/3isrequiredtobedeductedinconsiderationof

expenses incurred by deceased towards maintaining himself and,

therefore, net amount of future income loss comes to approximately

Rs.2,40,000/. [Reference: National Insurance Com. Ltd. v/s P.C.

Chacko,reportedin2012ACJ1065(DevisionBenchofHon'bleKerala

HighCourt,ErnakulanBench)]

11.7. Itistoberememberedthatineveryclaimpetitionpreferredu/s163

AoftheAct,whetherthedeceasedismarriedornot,unlikeasclaim

petitionpreferredu/s166oftheAct,onethird(1/3rd)amountfromthe

actualincomeofthedeceasedshouldbedeductedtowardspersonaland

livingexpendituresofthedeceased.


11.8. Overandabovethefutureincomeloss,claimant/sis/areentitledto

suchamount,specifiedundertheSecondScheduleoftheAct.However,

inthecaseofSapanv/sUnitedIndiaInsuranceCom.Ltd.,reportedin

AIR2008SC2281,heldthatwhenclaimpetitionpreferredu/s163A

andclaimantwouldremaincrippledthroughoutlifeandwouldhaveno

enjoymentforlife,TribunalcanawardfurthersumofRs.75,000/for

futuremedicaltreatment.


12.Whatifthechequegivenforpaymentofpremiumofinsurancepolicyis

dishonoured:

12.1. Reference may be made to the ratios laid down in the cases of

Deddappav/sNationalInsuranceCom.Ltd.,reportedin(2008)2SCC

595=AIR2008SC767=2007AIRSCW7948andUnited India

InsuranceCom.Ltdv/sLaxmamma,reportedin2012ACJ1307(SC).In

both these judgments, it has been held that when cheque given for

payment of premium of policy, is dishonoured and on that count

InsuranceCompanycancelsthepolicybyintimatingtheinsuredofsuch

dishonourofchequebeforethedateofaccident,theninsuchsituation

Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of

compensation but if insurer fails to intimate the insured about such

dishonourandcancellationofpolicybeforethedateofaccident,thenin

suchsituationinsurerisheldliabletopayamountofcompensationand

InsuranceCompanymayprosecuteitsremedytorecovertheamount

paidtotheclaimantsfromtheinsurer.


13.WhatisthemeaningofArisingoutofuseofMotorVehicle:

13.1. Legislaturehasadvisedlyusedtheexpression'arisingoutoftheuse

ofmotorvehicle'andnot 'connectedwiththeuseofmotorvehicle'

underSections140,163Aand166oftheActand,therefore,theremust

bemoredirectandpronouncedlinkageornexusbetweentheuseof

motor vehicle and the accident which has resulted. A mere casual

connectionisnotsufficient.

13.2. To decide the such issue one may advantageously refer to the

judgmentdeliveredbyHon'bleApexCourt,reportedasShivajiDayanu

PatilandAnr.v.VatschalaUttamMore,(1991)3SCC530=AIR1991

Sc1769.Inthesaidcase,Hon'bleApexCourtconsideredatlength,the

questionswhetherthefireandexplosionofthepetroltankerinwhich

deceasedlosthislifecouldbesaidtohaveresultedfromanaccident

arisingoutoftheuseofamotorvehicle,namelythepetroltanker.The

courtansweredthequestionintheaffirmative,thatistosay,infavour

oftheclaimantandagainsttheinsurancecompany.

13.3. ItistruethatthecaseShivajiDayanuPatil(supra)arosefromthe

claimfornofaultcompensationundersection92Aofthe1939Act(u/s

163AoftheNewAct).Allthematerialfactswereconsideredatlength

by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred case and, therefore, said

principleisalsoapplicableintheclaimpetitionpreferredu/s166ofthe

Act.


13.4. RatiolaiddownbyHon'bleApexCourtinthecaseofShivajiDayanu

Patil (supra) is also relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court in several

decisions,namely,SamirChanda,v/sManagingDirector,AssamState

TransportCorporation,reportedinAIR1999SC136andSmt.RitaDevi

v/sNewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.,reportedinAIR2000SC1930and

NewIndiaAssuranceCo.Ltd.v.YaduSambhajiMore,reportedinAIR

2011SC666.


14.WhetherFinanceCompany,whichhasadvancedloanforthepurposeof

purchaseofvehicleunderthe'HirePurchaseAgreement'canbesaidtobe

theowneroftheVehicle:

14.1. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godavari Finance v/s Degala

Satyanarayananamma,reportedin2008ACJ1612hasheldinpara13

asunder:

13.IncaseofamotorvehiclewhichissubjectedtoaHirePurchase

Agreement,thefinanciercannotordinarilybetreatedtobetheowner.

Thepersonwhoisinpossessionofthevehicle,andnotthefinancier

being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor

accident.

14.2. Referencemayalsobemaderatio laiddownin thecaseof Anup

Sarmahv/sBholaNathSharma,reportedinIV(2012)CPJ3(SC),para

No.8&9.


15. When an accident, involving two vehicles and driver of one of the

unknownvehiclespedawayaftertheaccident,whetherinsuchsituation,

claimpetitionismaintainableagainsttheothertortfeasor,inviewofthe

provisionscontainedunderSections161&163oftheAct:

15.1. Hon'ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal

No.3354of2000withCivilApplicationNo.746of2005dated13.7.2005

hasheldinsuchsituationclaimpetitionisnotmaintainable.ButHon'ble

GujaratHighCourt inthecaseofBhanubenP.Joshi V/s. Kantilal B.

Parmar,reportedin1994ACJ714(DB)hasheldotherwise.Factsofthe

BhanubenP.Joshi(supra)asunder:

15.1.1. Inthesaidcaseaccidentoccurredbecauseoneunknowntruck

dashedthemotorcycle frombehindandafter theaccident, truck

driver sped away with the truck and remained unidentified and

pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. Claimants of the said claim

petitionaverredthatmotorcycle wasbeingdrivenby its riderat

excessivespeedandinrashandnegligentmanner.Tribunaldismissed

theclaimpetitionbyholdingthattherewasnorashnessonthepart

ofthemotorcyclist.AfternotingthesaidfactsHon'bleGujaratHigh

Courthasobservedthatmotorcyclewasbeingdriveninrashand

negligent manner and in flagrant violation of traffic rules and

regulationsandfinallyreversedthefindingofTribunal.

15.1.2. ItisalsoheldinparaNo.9oftheabovereferredratio,namely

BhanubenP.Joshi(supra)thatvictimsofroadaccidentareentitledto


claimcompensationfromalloranyofthejointtortfeasors,itwould

not be necessary to apportion the extent of contribution of each

driverofhappeningofunfortunateaccident.

15.2. Fromtheabovereferredratiositbecomesclearthatevenifdriver

andowneroftheunknownvehicleisnotjoinedaspartiesopponents,

claimpetitionismaintainableagainstanyoneofthetortfeasors.


16. Whether all the joint tortfeasors are required to be joined as party

opponentsintheclaimpetition:

16.1. Hon'ble Gujarat Court in the case of O.I.Com.Ltd. v/s Zubedaben

Pathan, in F.A. No.651 of 2012 and judgment dated 18.02.2010,

delivered by Hon'ble Kerala Court in the case of U.I.Com.Ltd. v/s

Mariamma George, in M.A.C.A. No.744 of 2005 have held that the

claimant/s is/are not entitled to recover amount of compensation,

jointlyandseverallyfromtheinsurancecompany/companies,ifallthe

tortfeasorsarenotjoined.

16.2. ButHon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofAmarsingJugabhaiv/s

VijyabenDhuliya,reportedin1996(3)GLR493hasheldinparaNo.23

that:

Whereapersonisinjuredinamotoraccidentwhichoccursnoton

accountofhisnegligence,butbecausethedriversofcollidedvehicles

were negligent, the claimants are entitled to damage jointly and

severallyfromthenegligentrespondents.Everywrongdoerisliable

for the whole damage and it does not matter whether they acted

betweenthemselvesasequals.Adecreepassedagainsttwoormore

tortfeasorscanbeexecutedagainst anyoneof thedefendantsand

suchdefendantcanbecompelledtopaytheentireamountofdamages

decreed.Itisfurtherclearthatthedefendantwhoiscompelledtopay

theentire amount of damages decreedhas a right tocontribution

from the other wrongdoer. The liability in the case of composite

negligence,unlessmustnormallyshouldnotbeapportionedbecause


theclaimant isabletorecoverthewholeamountof compensation

from owner or driver of either vehicles. In case of composite

negligence,liabilityforcompensationinnormalcircumstances,should

not be apportioned, as both wrongdoers are jointly and severally

liableforthewholeloss.Ruleofapportionmentofliabilityappliesin

acaseof contributorynegligence,i.e.,wheretheinjuredhimselfis

alsoguiltyofnegligence.

16.3. Hon'bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofKusumbenVipinchandra

Shahv.ArvindbhaiNarmadashankarRaval,reportedinAIR2007Guj.

121.Whereinitisheldthat:

AsheldinGujaratStateRoadTransportCorporationv.Gurunath

Shahu (supra), the finding given by the Tribunal in such a case

regarding apportionment of liability would be tentative for the

purpose of subsequent proceeding which might be filed by the

defendanttortfeasoragainsttheotherjointtortfeasorwhowasnota

partytothefirstproceeding.Butsuchtentativenessforthepurposeof

contributionbetween two joint tortfeasors did not at all affect the

right of the plaintiffclaimant to recover full damages from the

defendanttortfeasoragainstwhomthefirstproceedingwasfiled.

16.4. Fromtheabovereferredratiositbecomesclearthatclaimant/sis/are

notrequiredtojoinallthetortfeasorsaspartyopponent/s.


17.Whetherthepointofne

Documents

MACP Referencer Manual