Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2926-2927 of 2007
PETITIONER:
New India Assurance Company Ltd
RESPONDENT:
Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2926-2927 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C.) Nos.20101-02 OF 2005)
(With C.A.No 2928/07 @ SLP (C) No.3957 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
C.A.Nos 2926-2927/07 @ SLP ) Nos.20101-02/05
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeals is to the legality of the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Uttranchal High
Court dismissing the appeal filed before it under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’). The Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, F.T.C.
Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the ’tribunal’) awarded a
sum of Rs.4,10,000/- in favor of the respondents 1 and 2
(hereinafter referred to as the ’claimants’).
3. The background facts which are almost undisputed
essentially are as follows:
4. On 11.11.2002 Hem Pathak (hereinafter referred to as
the ’deceased’) who was at the relevant point of time 25 years
of age lost his life in a vehicular accident. He was traveling in
Jeep No.UP 03/0805. The said jeep had a collision with truck
bearing No.UP 20A-8491. Since the truck was the subject
matter of insurance, the parents of the deceased filed a Claim
Petition. The Tribunal as noted above awarded Rs.4,10,000/-.
Since the age of the deceased was 25 years, multiplier of 17
was applied. The Tribunal referred to various decisions of this
Court for quantifying the amount as Rs.4,10,000/-.
5. Before the High Court it was contended by the appellant
that the multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the
age of the claimants and not on the age of the deceased, which
was to be taken as the basis for working out the
compensation. The High Court did not find any substance in
this plea. It was held that no permission had been granted to
the insurer to contest its claim. It was submitted that it is a
clear case of contributory negligence and the quantum of
compensation should be suitably divided. The High Court did
not find any substance in this plea also.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that both the trial Court and the High
Court failed to notice the age of the claimants which was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
relevant and not the age of the deceased.
7. Considering the income that was taken, the foundation
for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. The
monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal
course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court
for consideration on the materials placed before it. But
considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it
would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering
the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at
the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65
years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at
Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the
entitlement of the claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-. The same
shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application
for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted
from the amount due.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to
costs.
Civil Appeal No. 2928/07 @ SLP ) No.3957/06
In the instant case the age of the deceased was 52
years as per the post mortem report, and the multiplier
thus has to be 8 instead of 13 as adopted by the Tribunal
and upheld by the High Court. The rate of interest
awarded does not need any interference. The monthly
income has to be taken as Rs. 11,684/- and one-third has
to be deducted therefrom for personal expenses. Thus, the
annual loss of income comes to Rs.93,939/-. The same is
rounded to Rs.93,000/-. The entitlement for loss of income
comes to Rs.7,44,000/-. The other amounts awarded by
the Tribunal totaling Rs.29,500/- remain unaltered. Thus
the claimant is entitled to Rs.7,73,500 alongwith interest
at the rate fixed by the Tribunal. The payment already
made shall be adjusted.
The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with
no order as to costs.