Regarding macc case judgement

The award of compensation in a motor accident case based on the multiplier method is an established norm in India now.

A three- Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Trilok Chandra case reiterated what was stated in Susamma Thomas as regards determination of compensation in accident cases on the basis of multiplier method.

In Trilok Chandra, the Court considered Section 163A and the Second Schedule which was not under consideration in Susamma Thomas as Section 163A was not on the statute when the judgment in Susamma Thomas1 was delivered.

It was observed that by incorporation of Sections 163A and 163B in the 1988 Act the situation had undergone a change.

Under the Second Schedule, the maximum multiplier could be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas In Trilok Chandra, the maximum multiplier was fixed at 18 but the Court did find several defects in the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Second Schedule.

Importantly the Court stated in Trilok Chandra that Tribunals and the Courts cannot go by the ready reckoner; the Schedule can only be used as a guide.

Thank you for the coment. The judement in this case is given under Section 166. Also used the multiplier method. However, my question is regarding the amount which shuld be cnsidered as base for the income of a person. Should not it be a salary of whole month ?

No meaningful suggestion is possible unless the Judgment is perused. Can you attach the file?

Here I have attached the file.

Mact Claim Calculation

. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues 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 of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps

. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes upto 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/-, by applying the formula : (2/3 x AI x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation. 

Supreme court judgment Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009 will throw more light to your query, you may peruse the same to get more insights to your query.

Thank you so much for the information.

You are welcome

"It is seen from the evidence of PW2 that he produced salary slips of the victim for the month of October, 1998 and September, 1998 but the marked Exhibit 4 (for the month of October, 1998) indicates the Gross Salary of the victim as Rs. 4,444/­ per month and not Rs. 8,544/­ as deposed by him. Hence, this Tribunal considers Exhibit 4 only (not the other salary slip which was produced and being not attested and not being marked Exhibit), from which it is seen that the deceased victim used to earn Rs. 4,444/­ per month which leads to the yearly salary as Rs. 53,328/­  (4,444/­ X 12).  Thus, the yearly income of the deceased victim falls under the nontaxable category. Hence, this Tribunal holds that the deceased victim used to earn Rs. 4,444/­ per month from his profession"

It is an error apparent on the face of the record if the salary slip marked as Ext. 4 mentions only the salary for the period the deceased had worked and not the monthly salary. The dependents have the option to approach the High Court or to seek review before  the Tribunal itself.