Subscribe here to READ and DOWNLOAD judgment
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 166 – Claimant – Mother-in-law – Materials establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members – She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance – It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance – She may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death – She is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition. [Para 21]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 166- – ‘legal representative’ – Term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased – Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation. [Para 16]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families – Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. [Para 16]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Loss of dependency – In order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. [Para 16]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 166 – Personal expenses – Deduction of – Percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application – It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased – In some cases, the father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent – Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father – The percentage of deduction for personal expenditure, thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para17]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 166 – Split multiplier – Held, that at the time of calculation of the income, the Court has to consider the actual income of the deceased and addition should be made to take into account future prospects – Further, while the evidence in a given case may indicate a different percentage of increase, standardization of the addition for future prospects should be made to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted – In Pranay Sethi, the Constitution Bench has directed addition of 15% of the salary in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years as a thumb rule, where a deceased had a permanent job. In view of the above, the High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier in the instant case. [Para 28]
