MACT-Position after Sarla Verma case

With the ever increasing number of cars and the modernisation of society, the rate of motor accidents is going up with every passing day. While some are fortunate enough to escape the ordeal, many others lose their lives and leave back families to suffer the agony for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the tribunal which has been set up to claim compensation for the victims, is in fact a detriment which increases the agony of the family. For years, the case remains sub judice and the mental and physical sufferings make it a harrowing experience for the claimants who are already distressed by the loss of their dear ones. Over the years, obscurity has prevailed in Supreme Court's Judgments regarding computation of compensation. Finally, Considering the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation by the MACTs, the Supreme Court conclusively settled the question of determining quantum in the seminal decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Sarla Verma therefore clarifies the well entrenched formula for determining the correct compensation, a simple task which does not involve complicated questions of fact or law. Yet cases which could be easily and conclusively decided in a matter of minutes are pending disposal for decades. Further, the sheer number of such cases being filed in the Higher Judiciary is so high that disposal never catches up with filing. Even so, admitting such cases for years leads to completely defeating the rights of the victims as the enormous time delays nullify whatever benefits enhanced compensation may have. Although Sarla Verma has rationalised and simplified the computation of MACT claims, it is silent upon one crucial point of consideration. It nowhere specifies whether the age of claimants is to be considered while deciding compensation or not. Prior to the Sarla Verma Judgment, Supreme Court took an affirmative view on this in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176 and U.P State Road Transport Corporation ltd v. Trilok Chandra and ors, (1996) 4 SCC 362. In these cases it went on to say that, the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased ( or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and that selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of deceased. But after the Sarla Verma Judgment, this issue has again been sidelined and courts are awarding hefty compensations without considering the age of claimants. Age of claimants is a

factor which should necessarily be considered while awarding compensations because where the age of dependents is higher than that of the deceased, the multiplier should be lesser. Courts have taken an ignorant view of this relevant factor and consequently, the accused are being made to pay exorbitant compensations. However, in 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Devi v. New India insurance co ltd, (2010) 14 SCC 475 has specifically held that where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for capitalisation of the loss of dependancy. Further, the Punjab and Haryana High court has recently held in Ralla Singh v. Balwant Singh and Ors (2013) that age of claimants is a relevant factor to determine the multiplier to be applied to arrive at the loss of dependancy.