Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Motor Vehicles Act

Motor Accident Claims - The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the drive. (Para 10) Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Motor Accident Compensation - Dependents entitled to compensation for loss of income even if businesses & properties of deceased were bequeathed to them. [Para 14,17 & 22] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : AIR 2022 SC 4802

Motor Accident Compensation - Documents such as income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. [Para 14] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : AIR 2022 SC 4802

Motor Accident Compensation - Entire amount under 'Income from House Property and Agricultural Land' need not be deducted merely because properties have been bequeathed to dependents- compensation towards loss of managerial skills can be awarded. [Para 22] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : AIR 2022 SC 4802

Motor Accident Compensation - Mere fact that the Deceased's share of ownership in these businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased's minor children just before his death or to the dependents after his death is not a sufficient justification to conclude that the benefits of these businesses continue to accrue to his dependents. [Para 17] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : AIR 2022 SC 4802

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where appellant has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010 - The appellant is not able to move his both legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation and bed sore. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330 : (2022) 7 SCC 738

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Even if the income of the claimant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable him from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors - In cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects - Just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place. (Para 18-20) Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager UPSRTC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well - Law regarding determination of compensation discussed - "Just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident - Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. (Para 29-32, 139) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Fixing of notional income - In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased - Referred to Chandra Alias Chanda Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors; (2022) 1 SCC 198 - High Court fixed the notional income of the Deceased driver as 10,000/- As per notification issued under Kerala Fair Wages Act, a 'driver' in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015 - Thus Supreme Court fixed income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/- per month. (Para 19-22) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858 : AIR 2022 SC 5161

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - If the liability of the Insurance Company is decided and they are held not to be liable, ordinarily, there shall be no direction to "pay and recover" - In all cases such order of "pay and recover" would not arise when the Insurance Company is not liable but would, in the facts and circumstances, be considered by this Court to meet the ends of justice. Balu Krishna Chavan v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income of deceased. (Para 9) Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Multiplier of victims upto the age group of 15 years should be taken as '15' - When there is clear prohibition under Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 for engagement of children and the definition of "child" therein takes in children who have not completed their fourteenth year of age within its fold, there is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of '15' in the case of victims belonging to the age group upto 15 years. (Para 10.1.4) Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 892

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Notional Income - It is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income of the victim and the Court can award the same even in the absence of any documentary evidence - The Court should ensure while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. (Para 59) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Objective formula for calculating just compensation - Three factors that need to be established are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents - The issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. (Para 17-18) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858 : AIR 2022 SC 5161

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Pecuniary Expenses and Non- Pecuniary Loss - "Future Medical Expenses" and "Attendant Charges" would fall within the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses - "Pain and suffering" would be categorized as a non-pecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. (Para 67, 93) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Socio-economic background of the claimants must be considered while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability - Persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. (Para 27-29) Mohd Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager UPSRTC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases - Disagreed with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Tribunal. Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. (Para 12) Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330 : (2022) 7 SCC 738

Motor Accidents Compensation - Supreme Court grants relief to an advocate who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to an accident by enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs 23,20,000/- to Rs 51,62,000/-. Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : (2022) 8 SCC 489

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the first claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the first claim petition was filed and pending. It is made clear here that the claimant(s) are not required to apply before Supreme Court Court seeking transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorial jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor is to be the basis for multiplier. Giasi Ram v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 828

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Motor Accidents Claims Compensation - Mutliplier Method - Multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided by looking at the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs - Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed. (Para 14) Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : (2022) 8 SCC 489

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Claims- Does third party insurance cover pillion rider of a motor cycle? Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 726

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering - Factors to be considered - Prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering - There cannot be straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. (Para 8) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : AIR 2022 SC 1216

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of Loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members - Factors - The position of the claimant post­ accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case. (Para 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : AIR 2022 SC 1216

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Claimant is in coma even after a period of eight long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden during his entire life - The amount of compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and happiness of Rs.1,00,000/­ only is unreasonable and meagre - Enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/ - The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life - The amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/­ -. (Para 7, 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : AIR 2022 SC 1216

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - In the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Mona Baghel v. Sajjan Singh Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous - The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2022 SC 1096 : (2022) 5 SCC 107

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. (Para 14) Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841 : AIR 2022 SC 5006

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(30) - U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 2(h) - A financier who is in possession of the transport vehicle owing to non -payment of the loan amount is an "owner". (Para 8.3) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198 : AIR 2022 SC 1197 : (2022) 5 SCC 525

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 56, 59 and 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, does not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV. The scrutiny under Rule 174 is only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not compromised by deviating from the permit. The Rule will have no bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act. (Para 13.6) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 72 - Grant of a transport permit is an important function that the statutory authority under the Act would perform. (Para 18.1) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - A scrutiny of the vehicle, stand alone, irrespective of its relation with the permit becomes an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of Section 83 - the scope of scrutiny is limited only to examining if the vehicle is of same nature as in the permit. (Para 13.2,13.3) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174(2)(c) [which enables road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit] is valid - Rule 174 (2) (c) is neither ultra vires the Act, nor has overridden Section 83 - Kerala HC Judgment in Regional Transport Authority vs. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Ker. 720] set aside. (Para 1, 23, 24) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The purpose and object of mandating replacement by a vehicle of the same nature in Section 83 is only to ensure that the scrutiny and the conditions that were undertaken and imposed at the time of the grant continue even during the subsistence of the permit Rule 174 (2) (c) is intended to ensure that the conditions under which a transport permit is granted is not diluted when the vehicle covered by the permit is sought to be replaced by a new vehicle. (Para 15) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The vehicle which the Authority may not approve for replacement under section 83 on the ground that it is older than the vehicle covered under the permit, can be used as a transport vehicle within the State. There is no prohibition for such a usage as the said vehicle may continue to be fit and within the age limit prescribed by the Central Government. The rigour of Rule 174 (2) (c) is only in the context of a subsisting transport permit and not as a condition for transport vehicles as such. (Para 13.7) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Replacement of a vehicle during the subsistence and continuation of a transport permit is only an incident in the working of a transport permit. While addressing such an incident, the Authority cannot be oblivious of the history and background in which the permit is granted. (Para 21.2) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - The expression "same nature" is confined only to, mean "a bus by bus, a mini -bus by mini -bus and not bus by a minibus…." is not a correct way to read the provision. There is no need to restrict the meaning of an expression same nature - The phrase, of the same nature seen in the context of provisions proximate to Sections 83, relating to duration and renewals of permits (Section 81), transfer of permits (Section 82) lend clarity to the meaning of the expression. Same nature must necessarily relate to the same nature of the vehicle in the permit. The question to be asked is the nature of the vehicle under the permit. What kind of a vehicle was that? How was that connected to the permit granted? Does the new vehicle serve the same purpose as the old vehicle was serving under the permit? (Para 21.3, 13.4) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : 2022 (3) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Madras High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in respect of multiplier of 3 upto the date of superannuation and thereafter multiplier of 8 keeping in view the dependency of life for 10 years. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/ - with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2022 SC 1096 : (2022) 5 SCC 107

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.? - Certain provisions were not noticed by the court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 - The controversy in question needs to be revisited - referred to larger bench of more than Three Judges. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270 : 2022 (4) SCALE 554

Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Section 149 - The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of Section 149 of the M.V. Amendment Act and the amended Rules. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 159 - Supreme Court issues a slew of directions for immediate registration of First Accident Report by the Police immediately after a motor vehicle accident -The Court directed the Police department of all states to develop a specialized unit and post trained police officers in every police station within three months for the effective implementation of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence. (Para 11) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : AIR 2022 SC 3731

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 - It has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. (Para 10) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : AIR 2022 SC 3731

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - The compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. (Para 13) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : AIR 2022 SC 3731

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability - Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. (Para 10) Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Motor Accident Claims - compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious - Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. [Paras 11, 12] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : AIR 2022 SC 4802

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - While determining compensation under the Act, section 168 of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economic conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to corrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer's harm to the victim. It also endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent possible and to also save families which have lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case­to­case basis. However, it is imperative for the courts to grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss. (Para 16) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858 : AIR 2022 SC 5161