Back
1996(3) Supreme 72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Smt. Sarla Dixit & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Balwant Yadav & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5157 of 1992
Decided on 29-2-1996
Held : His gross salary at the time of his death was Rs. 1543/- p.m. He had passed his M.A. examination at the time of his death. He was in the time scale of Rs. 1000-50-1550. He had large number of years of military service ahead of him which would have certainly taken him to higher echelons in the military career. The evidence showed that he was teetotaller. He did not smoke or drink. This is established by the testimony of appellant No. 1. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record came to the conclusion that on account of the untimely death of Rama Kant the appellants suffered approximately a total monetary loss of Rs. 1,70,238/- But as the Tribunal found that the deceased was 75 responsible for the accident the appellants were awardedonly 25 of 1,70,238/- which came to Rs. 42,569/-. The High Court in appeal took the view that out of the gross salary of Rs. 1543/- p.m. deceased Rama Kant would have spent on himself Rs. 900/- and from this an amount of Rs. 375/- would have been spent on the clothing of the deceased leaving Rs. 375/- for the upkeep of the claimants per month. Considering the earning of the deceased from his salary and allowances from 1976 to 1996 the deceased would have spent a sum of Rs. 1,28,131/- being 25 of the gross emoluments on Appellants Nos. 1 and 2. The average figure for 20 years came to Rs. 6406/- per annum. This was taken as the annual dependency multiplicand and adopting the mulitplier of 15, figure of Rs. 96060/- was arrived at. It was noticed that family pension of Rs. 200/- p.m. was available to appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased. On that basis a figure of Rs. 36,000/- was worked out by adopting multiplier of 15 (that is to say) Rs. 200/- multiplied by 12 which lead to a figure of Rs. 2,400/- multiplied by 15. These Rs. 36,000/- were deducted from Rs. 96,090/- and accordingly a figure of Rs. 60,000/- was reached. 10 deduction was thereafter effected from the said figure and accordingly an amount of compensation of Rs. 54,000/- was worked out. (Para 6)
Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs. 1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs. 1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that this gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e., upto Rs. 3,000 per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 1,500/0 per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs. 4,500/- divided by 2, i.e., Rs. 2,200/-. Rs. 2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From that gross income at least 1/3rd will have to be deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. That would roughly work out to Rs. 730/- per month but even taking a higher figure of Rs. 750/- per month and deducting the same by way of average personal expenses of the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs. 2,200/- per month balance of Rs. 1,450 which can be rounded up to Rs. 1,500/- per month would have been the average amount available to the family of the deceased, i.e., his dependents, namely, appellants herein. It is this figure which would be the datum figure per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs. 18,000/-. Rs. 18,000/-, therefore, would be the proper multiplicand which would be available for capitalisation for computing the future economic loss suffered by the appellants on account of untimely death of the bread winner. As the age of the deceased was 27 years and a few months, at the time of his death the proper multiplier in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum (supra) would be 15. Rs. 18,000/- multiplied by 15 will work out to Rs. 2,70,000/-. To this figure will have to be added the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000/- by way of loss of estate and consortium etc. That will lead to a total figure of Rs. 2,85,000/-. (Para 6)
(ii) TORT-Contributory negligence-Accident on cross-section of two roads-Deceased, Scooterist was travelling inside the intersection when truck which came from another road dashed with scooter-Collusion occurred near centre of road-Injuries on deceased indicated fierce collision between scooter and front left wheel of the truck-Truck came to halt after travelling further to the extent of 70 ft.-Truck being driven by a novice driver without a licence-Deceased held not negligent-Rash and negligent driving of truck established-Driver of truck committed breach of Regulation (6) of Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-No question of slicing down any amount from compensation held payable to claimants of deceased.
Held : It was, therefore, clearly established that the collision between the truck and the scooter had occurred somewhere near the centre of road No. 7. It showed that the scooter had already entered the intersection from the northern border of road No. 7, had travelled upto 11 ft. across the width of the road at the said intersection and but for the accident it would have travelled further south and would have passed through the southern outlet of the intersection. It, therefore, becomes apparent that when the scooterist had entered the intersection from the northern side and had covered almost half the distance of the width of that intersection the offending truck came from the western side and dashed against the scooter and threw it off along with the driver and the pillion rider. That indicated how fast the truck would have been driven from west to east on the main road and because of that speed the scooterist who had already crossed half the width of the road, was thrown off. That also indicated that the driver of the truck, respondent No. 2 had not cared to see the scooterist who had almost reached half way across his path while he was proceeding from west to east on road No. 7 and without caring for the safety of the scooterist who would have been clearly visible to him in the broad day light while he was coming from the western side of the road and without least bothering for the safety of the scooterist crossing the intersection. He almost ran over the scooter and threw it off. It is true that the injuries noted by the doctor in the post-mortem report did not indicate that the deceased was run over by the wheel of the truck but the severe impact caused by the accident all on the right side of the body of the deceased indicated the fierce collision between the scooter and the front left wheel of the truck. There would thus be two types of negligence on the part of the truck driver, (i) he was proceeding with very high speed even though he was approaching an intersection on that road; and (ii) the driver did not care to look out for the safety of the scooterist who had already crossed half of the intersection and almost come to the middle of the intersection and who would naturally be very much visible to the truck driver coming from the western side and proceeding towards the east. (Para 7)
On the facts of the present case it is well established from the evidence of pillion rider Ramji Sharma, appellants-witness No. 7 that while entering the intersection from the northern side of road No. 7 deceased had already sounded the horn and had also given a hand signal to indicate that he intended to go across road No. 7. There was no occasion for him to halt and give way to the truck coming from the western side and proceeding towards the eastern side of road No. 7 for the simple reason that Rama Kant had already entered the intersection and had travelled almost half way across the breadth of road No. 7. In the meantime the offending truck came with great speed from the western side and dashed against the scooter. Regulation (7) could have been pressed in service against deceased Rama Kant if it was shown that while entering the intersection, having seen the on-coming truck from his right hand side he had not taken due precaution. Such a situation, on the facts of the present case, is found to be absent. On the other hand respondent No. 2 driving the offending truck on the main road No. 7 from west to east is shown to have committed breach of Regulation (6) of the very same Schecdule. ...... Respondent No. 2 was required to slow down while approaching the road intersection or junction and as he had not done so but went on driving with full speed the offending truck which threw off the scooterist who was already in the middle of the intersection, he was guilty of breach of Regulation (6) of Tenth Schedule and had endangered the safety of the persons crossing the said road at the relevant time. Consequently the recklessness and negligence in driving the offending truck at the relevant time wholly rest on the shoulder of respondent No. 2. (Para 7)
(iii) Motor Accident Claim-Fatal accident cases-Method for arriving at proper multiplicand and multiplier -Susamma Thomas case, (1994) 2 SCC 176. Relied on.
Held : So far as the adoption of the proper multiplier is concerned, it was observed that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the muliplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the ascertained of the multiplicand is a more difficult exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful. (Para 6)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majmudar, J.-The appellants, who were the original claimants in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 174 of 1977 by which, according to the appellants, the High Court only marginally enhanced the compensation payable by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the appellants. They have obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from this Court and that is how this appeal was placed for final hearing before us.
Introductory Facts
2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the outset. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of late Captain Rama Kant Dixit who died on 16th March, 1957 in a road accident. Appellant No. 2 was the minor daughter of appellant No. 1 who by now has become major as she was aged 14 years in 1985 when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was moved in this Court. It is the case of the appellants that late Capt. Rama Kant Dixit was hit by the offending truck owned by respondent No. 1 which was driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 2. The truck was insured against third party risk by respondent No. 3. That on the relevant date of the accident the deceased was aged 27 years and was serving as Captain in Indian Army. He was going on 16th March 1975 at about 11.00 a.m. from Chandra Prasth Colony side towards Mall Road, Morar, within the city of Gwalior. That at that time respondent No. 2 was driving the aforesaid truck and was coming from the side of Gola-Ka-Mandir and was proceeding towards a locality known as J&K. The said road was a public road admeasuring 25 ft. in width and was running from west to east. The truck was proceeding from west to east going towards eastern side where locality J&K was situated. On the said road intersection No. 7, another public road, was proceeding from north to south and it was known as Indraprastha Road. The deceased at the relevant time was driving a scooter carrying a pillion rider, appellants witness No. 7 one Ramji Sharma. It is the case of the appellants that while the scooter had entered the intersection and was proceeding southwards on the said road respondent No. 2 driving the truck from the western side came in high speed and dashed against the scooter resulting in instantaneous death of appellant No. 1 s husband Capt. Rama Kant Dixit. On account of the said accident the appellants having lost the sole bread winner filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the Gwalior Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the said Claim Petition originally appellant No. 1 s mother-in-law, that is, mother of deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined as one of the claimants but pending the proceedings, she expired and the appellants continued the Claim Petition also as her heirs with the result that thereafter remained as claimants only the present two appellants. The claimants put forward total claim of Rs. 6,12,524/- on various heads against the respondents. However, the Tribunal after computing the compensation payable to the appellants sliced it down by 75 on the ground that deceased Rama Kant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 75 and the truck driver was negligent only to the extent of 25 and awarded in all Rs. 42,569/- to the appellants. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were made liable to make good the said amount. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal as it was found that at the relevant time the offending truck was being driven by respondent No. 2 who was not having any driving licence. The appellants being aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal preferred the aforesaid appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior. It may be noted that so far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned they preferred Cross First Appeal No. 178 of 1977 challenging th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
