Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6227 of 2006]
Mohan Singh …Appellant
Versus
Kashi Bai & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant before us is the driver and owner of the jeep bearing
registration No. MP-04J 1824 which met with an accident on 21.11.1999
having collided with a truck. The deceased Balma @ Balram Gond,
Ramgopal and Shankarlal admittedly were travelling in the said vehicle.
3. A First Information Report was lodged. The heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased filed applications for grant of compensation
2
in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the
Act”) which was marked as Claim Case Nos. 76, 78 and 79 of 2002.
4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival contentions of the
parties, framed the following issues:
“1. Whether on 21.11.99 in the night at about 8
a.m. near village Semri, non applicant No. 1
driving Jeep No. MP04 1824 and truck No.
MP04K2028 driven negligently and rashly the
collision between the two vehicle occurred and in
the result Shankarlal died.
2. Whether there was contributory negligence
on the part of both the drivers? If so, effect.
3. At 8 p.m. Jeep No. MP04J1824 was dashed
by truck No. MP04 K 2028 and the accident was
caused, if so, effect..
4. Whether applicants are entitled for
compensation.
5. Relief & Cost.”
5. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the depositions of the
witnesses held that neither the truck No. MP04K 2028 was involved in the
accident, nor was it caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the
part of its driver. The learned Tribunal passed awards in all the three cases
as under:
3
Claim Case No. 76 of 2002 Rs. 1,32,000/-
Claim Case No. 78 of 2002 Rs. 1,92,000/-
Claim Case No. 79 of 2002 Rs. 4,22,400/-
6. Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the appellant. By reason of
the impugned judgment, the High Court, however, reversed the said
findings, holding:
“16. Coming to question of negligence, though
Mohan Singh and two other witnesses examined
by the claimant has stated that it was the truck
driver who drove it in rash and negligent manner.
However, in the claim petition, it was rightly
mentioned that jeep driver also drove it in rash and
negligent manner and the accident took place
when two vehicles dashed against each other.
Both were coming from opposite direction, thus, it
was the duty of both the drivers to avoid the
collision in which they have failed. Thus, we
come to the conclusion that it is a case of
contributory negligence in equal proportion of
both drivers.”
Although we are of the opinion that the High Court in doing so
should have considered the matter at some details and it was further
required to assign some reasons in support thereof, but, it is not necessary
4
for us to consider that aspect of the matter as the owner or the insurer of the
truck having not preferred any appeal, the same has attained finality.
In this appeal we are concerned with only one question, viz., as to
whether any case has been made out for enhancement of the amount of
compensation in favour of the appellant.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
proceeded on the basis that the age of the deceased Shankarlal was 35 years.
His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month. One-third of the
said amount was deducted as his personal expenditure. Applying the
multiplier of 10, it was held that the applicants were entitled to
compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-.
As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased Balma is concerned, the loss of
dependency was determined at Rs. 12,000/- per annum by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the fact that he was aged 25 years, the multiplier of 15 was
used to hold that a compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- should be
granted.
5
The deceased Ram Gopal was aged 31 years at the time of the
accident. A multiplier of 12 was used in his case and the amount of
compensation of Rs. 4,22,400/- was held to be payable to him on the
premise that the loss of dependency was Rs. 34,200/- per annum.
8. The High Court, however, although did not interfere with these
finding of facts, applied the multiplier of 17 in all the cases.
9. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in
holding that the multiplier of 17 should be applied in modification of the
order of the Tribunal.
10. The liability to pay compensation in a case where a vehicle meets
with an accident is principally that of the owner thereof. The age of the
deceased as also the loss of dependency suffered by his heirs respectively
and legal representatives is seriously not in dispute.
11. The core question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to
whether the multiplier specified in the table contained in the Second
Schedule appended to the Act should have been applied. Although the
6
Second Schedule is applicable only in respect of the claim petitions filed
under Section 163A of the Act, indisputably, the same provides for some
guidelines. In a case where the deceased was above 25 years but not
exceeding 30 years, in terms of the said Second Schedule, the multiplier of
18 is to be applied. In the case of the deceased whose age was above 30
years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplier of 17 in terms of the Second
Schedule is required to be applied. The High Court, therefore, in our
opinion, has applied the correct multiplier. The quantum of multiplicand, as
noticed hereinbefore, is not in question. In a case of this nature, it is not
necessary to go into the larger question, viz., as to whether the courts should
apply the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule in a proceeding under
Section 166 of the Act.
12. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and others, [(1994) 2 SCC 176] apart
from applying the structured formula for determination of the amount of
compensation with regard to the future prospect of the deceased, it was
opined :-
“19. In the present case the deceased was 39 years
of age. His income was Rs 1032 per month. Of
7
course, the future prospects of advancement in life
and career should also be sounded in terms of
money to augment the multiplicand. 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
ascertainment 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. The deceased person in
this case had a more or less stable job. It will not
be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view
of the prospects of the future and in estimating the
gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate
the loss of dependency on the present actual
income of Rs 1032 per month. We think, having
regard to the prospects of advancement in the
future career, respecting which there is evidence
on record, we will not be in error in making a
higher estimate of monthly income at Rs 2000 as
the gross income. From this has to be deducted his
personal living expenses, the quantum of which
again depends on various factors such as whether
the style of living was spartan or bohemian. In the
absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct
one-third of the gross income towards the personal
living expenses and treat the balance as the
amount likely to have been spent on the members
of the family and the dependents. This loss of
dependency should capitalize with the appropriate
multiplier. In the present case we can take about
Rs 1400 per month or Rs 17,000 per year as the
loss of dependency and if capitalized on a
multiplier of 12, which is appropriate to the age of
the deceased, the compensation would work out to
(Rs 17,000 x 12 = Rs 2,03,000) to which is
added the usual award for loss of consortium and
8
loss of the estate each in the conventional sum of
Rs 15,000.”
In Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., [ (2001) 2
SCC 9 ] this Court observed:-
22 . The appellants claimed a sum of Rs 2,36,000.
But PW 1 widow of the deceased said that her
husband’s income was Rs 1500 per month. PW 4
brother of the deceased also supported the same
version. No contra-evidence has been adduced in
regard to that aspect. It is, therefore, reasonable to
believe that the monthly income of the deceased
was Rs. 1500. In calculating the amount of
compensation in this case we lean ourselves to
adopt the structured formula provided in the
Second Schedule to the MV Act. Though it was
formulated for the purpose of Section 163-A of the
MV Act, we find it a safer guidance for arriving at
the amount of compensation than any other
method so far as the present case is concerned.”
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan,
[ (2002) 6 SCC 281 ], however, this Court held :-
“21. The purpose to compensate the dependants of
the victims is that they may not be suddenly
deprived of the source of their maintenance and as
far as possible they may be provided with the
means as were available to them before the
accident took place. It will be a just and fair
compensation. But in cases where the amount of
compensation may go much higher than the
9
amount providing the same amenities, comforts
and facilities and also the way of life, in such
circumstances also it may be a case where, while
applying the multiplier system, the lesser
multiplier may be applied. In such cases, the
amount of multiplicand becomes relevant. The
intention is not to overcompensate.
22. We therefore, hold that ordinarily while
awarding compensation, the provisions contained
in the Second Schedule may be taken as a guide
including the multiplier, but there may arise some
cases, as the one in hand, which may fall in the
category having special features or facts calling
for deviation from the multiplier usually
applicable.”
It is evident from the above that this Court in the said decisions had
taken a departure from the Second Schedule.
In Jyoti Kaul v. State of M.P., [ (2002) 6 SCC 306 ] multiplier of 15
was adopted, stating :-
“The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the
principle of multiplier would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. Looking to the
facts of this case we find that the Tribunal has
given good reasons for applying the multiplier of
15. This was in addition of taking into
consideration that the predecessors of the deceased
all lived for more than 80 years. The High Court
reduced the multiplier from 15 to 10 without
taking into consideration circumstances
considered by the Tribunal and thus committed the
error. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of
10
the High Court only to the extent of the
application of multiplier and uphold other findings
including reduction of interest. The present appeal,
accordingly, succeeds in part. The computation of
compensation now shall be made on the basis of
multiplier of 15. The difference of enhanced
amount which has yet not been paid by the
respondent State shall be paid to the claimants
within a period of three months from today.”
In Smt. Supe Dei & Ors. v. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
[JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451], this Court held:
“…While considering the question of just
compensation payable in a case all relevant factors
including the appropriate multiplier are to be kept
in mind. The position is well settled that the
second schedule under Section 163A to the Act
which gives the amount of compensation to be
determined for the purpose of claim under the
section can be taken as a guideline while
determining the compensation under Section 166
of the Act. In that view of the matter, there is no
reason why multiplier of 17 should not be taken as
the appropriate multiplier in the case.”
In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of
India and Another [(2003) 3 SCC 148], this Court held:
11
“11. It is now a well-settled principle of law
that the payment of compensation on the basis of
structured formula as provided for under the
Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated
from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays
down the guidelines for determination of the
amount of compensation in terms of Section 166
thereof. Deviation from the structured formula,
however, as has been held by this Court, may be
resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the
amount of compensation should be just and fair in
the facts and circumstances of each case.
12. The victim at the relevant time was 40
years of age. The Tribunal and the High Court,
therefore, cannot be said to have committed an
error in applying the multiplier of 15. The only
question which is required to be considered now is
as to how the multiplicand should be arrived at.
13. The deceased at the time of accident was a
young man. He had a stable job. A reasonably
liberal view of his future prospects should have,
therefore, been taken into consideration by the
High Court as well as by the Tribunal.
14. Having regard to the prospects and
advancement of the future career, a higher
estimate of the yearly income at Rs.45,000 would
not be out of place. From the said amount, one-
third of the gross income towards personal living
expenses should be deducted. The amount of
Rs 30,000 should thus be determined as the loss of
dependency. The said sum should be capitalized
by applying the multiplier of 15, which comes to
Rs 4,50,000.”
In Kanhaiyalal Kataria and Others v. Mukul Chaturvedi and Others
[(2005) 12 SCC 190], this Court held:
12
“3. Learned counsel for the claimants made
submissions seeking enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the income of the
deceased has not been properly estimated. We are
not going into any other aspect except the question
of proper multiplier for computation of
compensation. In our opinion, by taking the
multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation
deserves to be increased. The compensation
amount may be suitably recomputed by the
Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 17 and
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the
increased amount be also granted.”
In Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another
[(2008) 4 SCC 259], this Court held:
“4. After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken
by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct.
The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not
have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for
personal use and rest of the amount earned by him
would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore,
determining the loss of dependency by 50% was
not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be
spending 1/3rd towards personal use and
contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family.
Therefore, we work out that Rs 30,000 was
earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency
was 2/3rd i.e. Rs 20,000. The multiplier of ‘11’
applied for loss of dependency was also not
correct and as per Schedule appended to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 it should be ‘12’. Applying the
multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency will
13
be Rs 20,000 x 12 = Rs 2,40,000 and Rs
10,000 towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses, the total compensation comes to
Rs 2,50,000 and incumbent is entitled for interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. The
appeal is allowed with the aforesaid modification.”
13. We, therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High
Court in applying the multiplier of 17 need not be interfered with.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which
is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………….J.
[S.B. Sinha]
..…………………………J.
[Cyriac Joseph]
New Delhi;
January 13, 2009