1996(4) Supreme 479
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., N.P. Singh and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Trilok Chandra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7760-7761 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10664-65 of 1993)
Decided on 7-5-1996
Held : The situation has now undergone a change with the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by Amendment Act, 54 of 1994. The most important change introduced by the amendment insofar as it relates to determination of compensation is the insertion of Sections 163A and 163B in Chapter XI entitled Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks . Section 165A begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the mode of calculation of compensation for third party accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The first column gives the age group of the victims of accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which the victim belonged. Thus, under this schedule the maximum multiplier can be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in Susamma Thomas case (Para 16)
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI - Special leave granted.
2. The short question which we are called upon to consider in this appeal relates to the use of the correct multiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of a victim of a road accident. The question arises in the backdrop of the following facts.
3. Prem Chandra, aged about 26 years, met with a fatal accident on 1st August, 1977. He was knocked down by an omnibus bearing Registration No. UTW 1802 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. His legal representative preferred a claim for compensation. Taking his earning capacity at Rs. 300/- per month, it was estimated that he spent Rs. 200/- per month on his family members. Fixing the life expectancy at 60 years, the Tribunal deducted 36 years and held that the family was deprived of his earning for 24 years. The compensation was thus worked out at Rs.57,600/- (200x12x24). This amount was raised to Rs. 81,600/- as it was realised that the Tribunal had wrongly taken the age of the deceased at 36 instead of 26 years and had, therefore, committed an error in employing the multiplier of 24 years purchase factor instead of 34 years purchase factor. Thus the compensation came to Rs. 200x12x34 = 81,600. The question then is whether the Tribunal was right in employing the multiplier of 24 or the High Court was right in employing the multiplier of 34?
4. India is one of the countries with the highest number of road accidents. Motor accidents are every day affairs. A large number of claims for compensation for injury caused by road accidents are pending in various Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In a fatal accident the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of the death. The most commonly practised method of assessing the loss suffered is to calculate the loss for a year and then to capitalise the amount by a suitable multiplier. To that is added the loss suffered on account of loss of expectation of life and the like. The Tribunals and High Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this Court has not been uniform; maybe because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted.
5. The topic of compensation for causing death by negligent driving came up for serious discussion before this Court in Gobald Motor Services Limited & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and others1. The Court referred to the House of Lords decision in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd.2 and quoted the following passage from the judgment :
"The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered.
The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and, on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death."
6. The Court also referred to the Judgment by Viscount Simon in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railways Co. Ltd.3 in which the same principles were enunciated for estimating the damages, the method adopted however differed. Various factors that would enter the calculation as per Viscount Simon were set out in the judgment as under:
".....at first the deceased man s expectation of life has to be estimated having regard to his age, bodily health and the possibility of pre-mature determination of his life by later accidents; secondly, the amount required for the future provision of his wife shall be estimated having regard to the amounts he used to spend on her during his lifetime, and other circumstances; thirdly,the estimated annual
Gobald Motor Services Ltd. & Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami & Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti & Ors.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.