- (1.) The questions raised in the above reference to be answered by a Larger Bench are as follows:-- "1. What would be the basis of fixing the multiplier for the purpose of deciding the amount of compensation in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? and 2. Whether or not it would be proper to fix such multiplier on the basis of the remaining period of service of the victim and/or the deceased in a case where the victim and/or the deceased had died after fifty years of age?" This reference is made in the year 2012 and the matter is kept pending till date. Meanwhile, several decisions of the Apex Court touching the issues have come and the latest judgment of the Apex Court is in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., 2013 9 SCC 65. Further this is a judgment by a Bench consisting of three Judges. On perusal of the judgment, at paras 1.1 and 1.2, the two common questions, which fell for consideration before the Bench read as under:-- "1.1. Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') should be scrupulously applied in all cases? And 1.2. Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?"
(2.) Reading of these two common questions under reference in the above appeal clearly indicate with reference to the same controversy arisen for our consideration in the above reference. After referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court which are referred to in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Apex Court, from paragraph 43.2 onwards, the summary of the discussion and the opinion of the Apex Court is expressed which reads as under:-- "43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. 43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 43.4. The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarala Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. 43.5. While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 24 of the judgment in Sarala Verma. 43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarala Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above. 43.7. The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration."
(3.) In the light of above decision nothing needs to be answered with regard to the instant reference. Fresh consideration of the matter under reference does not arise, as it stands answered in the above judgment of the Apex Court. Hence, registry is directed to-place the matter before the concerned Division Bench for disposal on merits.;