Back
2011 (2) Supreme 86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Sri. K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
The Administrative Officer & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1923-1924 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16406-16407 of 2010)
Decided on 18-2-2011
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -Death of deceased aged 53 years in a motor vehicular accident-On Claim petition Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,27,496/- along with interest of 9% p.a.- On appeals thereagainst High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.11,82,000/-Appeal-Plea of appellants that a split multiplier ought not to have been adopted-Held High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from multiplier used by Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore- When the age of deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II Column in the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act - Tribunal had not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier- Held incomprehensible as to why High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6 (Paras 14)
Facts of the Case :
Deceased aged 53 years died in a motor vehicular accident herein in the instant case.On Claim petition Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,27,496/- along with interest of 9% p.a. On appeals thereagainst High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.11,82,000/.
2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.Plea of appellants that future prospects of deceased and revision in salary were not taken into consideration by High Court.
Findings of the Court :
In Sarla Varma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another it was held that there should be no addition to income for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years.However, it was held that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.Instant case stands on different factual basis where there was clear and incontrovertible evidence on record that deceased was entitled and in fact bound to get a rise in income in the future, a fact which was corroborated by evidence on record.Hence, even though deceased was above 50 years of age, he was entitled to increase in income due to future prospects. Consistent evidence before Tribunal was that if the deceased would have been alive he would have reached the gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. In view of this evidence Tribunal ought to have considered the prospect of future income while computing compensation but Tribunal had not done that. In the appeal, High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation, granted by Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, High Court had not given any reason- Impugned judgment of High Court held liable to be set aside as it was perverse and clearly contrary to evidence on record, for having not considered future prospects of the deceased. Appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J. —
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. On 4.10.1998, at about 8.55 a.m., V. Rajagopalaiah was crossing the road near Ashraya Hotel, B.M. Road, Channapatna, when a Maruti Van (owned by the first respondent) bearing registration No. KA-05-A-2535 came at a high speed and dashed against the deceased, causing severe injuries. He was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries.
4. The deceased was of 53 years of age and was survived by his wife and three sons, the present appellants. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. It was contested by the respondents.
5. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter “MACT”) found that the death of V. Rajagopalaiah was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver (the second respondent). The deceased was working as Senior Assistant in Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter “KEB”) and his last drawn gross monthly salary was Rs.15,642/- i.e. Rs.1,87,704/- annually. 1/3rd was deducted for personal expenses, after which the amount came to Rs.1,25,136/-. As deceased was 53 years of age, a multiplier of 11 was applied. The Tribunal also awarded funeral and transport expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-, medical expenses prior to death was Rs.6,000 and compensation for loss and affection at Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, total compensation awarded was Rs.14,27,496/- along with interest of 9% p.a.
6. The appellants and the respondents both appealed against the award of the Tribunal to the High Court of Karnataka. The appellants appeared for enhancement and the respondents for reduction of the amount awarded. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants to Rs.11,82,000/-. The relevant portion of High Court order reads as follows:
“The deceased was working as Senior Assistant in KEB getting a salary of Rs.15,642/-. After effecting deductions towards income tax, the net salary of the deceased would be Rs.14,000/-. The mother and sons of the deceased have filed claim petition. 1/5 is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Rs.11,200/- would enure to the benefit of the dependants. The deceased was aged about 52 years. The deceased would have retired by 58 years. After superannuation, the deceased would get pensionary income in a sum of Rs.6000/-. 1/5 is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Rs.4800/- would enure to the benefit of the dependants. Split multiplier would apply. After superannuation, multiplier 6 would apply. Therefore, the total loss of dependency before superannuation would be Rs.8,06,400/- (Rs.11200 (income) X 12 (months) X 6 (multiplier). The total loss of dependency from the pensionary income would be Rs.3,45,600/- (Rs.4800/- (income) X 12 (months) X 6 (multiplier). The total loss of dependency would be Rs.11,52,000/- The petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectancy and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the petitioners are entitled for a total sum of Rs.11,82,000/- as against Rs.14,27,496/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled for interest at 6% p.a.”
7. Assailing the same, the appellants contend that the future prospects of the deceased and revision in salary were not taken into consideration by the High Court and a split multiplier should not have been adopted.
8. The law regarding addition in income for future prospects has been clearly laid down in Sarla Varma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1 [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and the relevant portion reads as follows:
“In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future pr
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
