Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  - Section 163-A , Section 166

Second Schedule - Motor Accident - Compensation - Computation of - In case of application under Section 163-A, compensation can be computed by applying structured formula basis - Principle relating to determination of liability and quantum of compensation are different for claims made under section 163-A and section 166 of the Act - Section 163-A and Second Schedule in terms do not apply to case under Section 166, but , principles underlying therein are applied.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  - Section 163-A

Second Schedule - Motor accident - Compensation - Principles for of compensation - Methods of computation vis-à-vis just compensation - Nance and Davies methods, mostly adopted - Question of adoption of one of the two methods considered - In General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176, Davies method was preferred by Supreme Court - Court noted the impact and effect of divergence of view in this regard - Compensation is not 'just' merely because, Tribunal considers it to be 'just' - 'Just' compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  - Section 163-A

Second Schedule - Motor accident - Compensation - Quantum of - Determination - Future prospects vis-à-vis Revision of pay-scales - Deceased died in an accident involving a DTC Bus - Deceased, 38 years of age, a Scientist in ICAR - Tribunal assessing salary of deceased to be Rs. 3,402 p.m. - Deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses - Tribunal applying multiplier 22 - Compensation Rs. 5,94,000/- awarded with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization - High Court assessing pay @ Rs. 4,004 instead of Rs. 3,402 p.m. - Further High Court taking note of left service period 22 years - It considered annual increments and revision of pay which would have been earned by deceased had he been alive - In this view of High Court considering salary would have at least been doubled, i.e. Rs. 8,808 p.m. - Thus by taking average between those two figures High Court assessing salary to be Rs. 6006p.m. - High Court applying multiplier of 13 awarding compensation of Rs. 7,02,624 - Supreme Court directing, only 1/5th deduction - Multiplier of 15 applied - Monthly salary arrived at by High Court, confirmed - Further enhancement of Rs. 1,65,246 with interest @ 6% from there date of petition till realization allowed - Increased compensation to go exclusively to the widow - Appeal allowed partly.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  - Section 163-A

Second Schedule - Motor Accident - Death of deceased in the accident - Deduction for personal living expenses vis-a-vis contribution to family - No evidence regarding actual expenses of deceased need be shown - Deduction of 1/3 rd of income if deceased has got statutory recognition - Such deduction is not inflexible rule, just a guideline.

Topic(s)-Motor Accident Claim , Compensation , Second Schedule , Principles for Compensation

Important Decision(s)- In case of application under Section 163-A, compensation can be computed by applying structured formula basis.