Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3397 OF 2012
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.27751 OF 2011)
AMRIT BHANU SHALI & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Delay condoned
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the reduction of
compensation determined by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘the
Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim No.80/2008 and
JUDGMENT
being aggrieved for not enhancing the amount as was
claimed, the appellants preferred this appeal.
4. The deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali, son of the Ist
nd th
and 2 appellants, was going to Thanod on 20 July,
2008 by Swift Car bearing Registration No.CG04
HA/6905 from Naharpara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. While
he was coming back at about 4.30 p.m. near Thanod,
one Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.CG04
Page 1
2
HA/5372 coming rashly and negligently from Abhanpur
dashed the Maruti Swift Car. Due to that accident,
Ritesh Bhanu Shali and one Sardar Jaspreet died on
the spot and another Shivam received injuries. The
Ist appellantAmrit Bhanu Shali is the father, the
nd rd
2 appellantSmt. Sarlaben is the mother and 3
appellantMamta Bhanu Shali is the sister of the
deceased. Claiming to be the dependent on the
deceased they filed Motor Accident Claim Case
No.80/2008 before the Tribunal u/S 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for award
of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,50,000/.
5. The nonapplicants, owner of the car, driver and
National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the “Insurance Company”) appeared and
JUDGMENT
defended their case. On the pleadings of the parties
the Tribunal framed the following issues:
“SL.NO. ISSUE
1. Whether on 20.07.2001 at about 4.30 P.M.
near Village Thanod more, the non applicant
No.1 had hit the Swift Car by driving rashly
and negligently the vehicle Scorpio bearing
No.CG 04 HA/5372 under the ownership of non
applicant No.2 and insured with the non
applicant No.3 due to which Ritesh
Bhanushali died after receiving the injuries
?
Page 2
3
2. Whether applicants have the right to get the
compensation separately and jointly from the
non applicants ? If yes then how much ?
3. Whether at the time of accident the non
applicant No.1 was having valid driving
license ?
4. Whether the non applicant was driving the
vehicle in violation of terms and agreement
of policy ?
5. Relief and cost.”
6. In support of the claim petition, the Ist
appellantAmirt Bhanu Shali examined himself (AW1)
and one Shivam Mahobe (AW2), who was also
travelling in the same Maruti Swift Car. The
appellants have produced Exhibits P1 to P10 series
including a report to the Police Station, Abhanpur.
The Ist AppellantAmirt Bhanu Shali (AW1) in his
statement stated that at the time of accident his
JUDGMENT
sonRitesh Bhanu Shali was 26 years old, as his date
of birth is 24.08.1982 and he was doing business of
real estate and used to sale handset mobile and also
took tuitions and used to earn Rs. 10,000/ per
month. The deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali also used to
file Income Tax Returns. The Income Tax Returns
filed by his sonRitesh was produced in the Court as
Exhibit P10 and the photocopies of which is
Page 3
4
Exhibit.P10C. No separate document was placed
pertaining to the sale and purchase of land. The Ist
AppellantAmrit Bhanu Shali (AW1) stated that both
the appellants father and the mother were not
rd
earning and 3 appellant was unmarried at the time
of accident and was dependent on the deceased. It is
stated that Mamta Bhanu Shali has also got married.
7. The nonapplicant No.1Mukesh Agrawal stated
that he is the owner of the Scorpio Car bearing
Registration No. CG04HA/5372 and at the time of
accident the licence holder driver was Bakar Khan.
At the time of accident the original licence was
with the driver. During that accident licence was
not seized. After the accident he took out the
details of the licence of Bakar Khan from Regional
JUDGMENT
Transport Officer, Raipur. He denied that Bakar Khan
does not know driving. He further stated that he
has presented the original policy of the vehicle
before the Insurance Company. At the time of
accident the surveyor of the Insurance Company came
for examination and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ was paid
by the Insurance Company towards damage.
Page 4
5
8. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence
and analysis of documentary evidence set the Issue
No.1 in the affirmative and held that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Scorpio Car.
9. While dealing with issue No. 2, the Tribunal
adverted to the statement made by the appellant No.1
in his cross examination and held that the appellant
No.3 Mamta Bhanu Shali cannot be treated as
dependant upon the deceased because she was aged
about 29 years and was married by that time. The
rest of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, the parents,
were accepted as dependents. The Tribunal taking
into consideration the fact that the deceased was
JUDGMENT
unmarried and 26 years old young man at the time of
accident and his salary was Rs.99,000/ per annum,
deducted 50% of the income and applying the
multiplier of 17 as per the decision of this Court
in “ Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ”
(2009) 6 SCC 121 held that the appellants are
entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,66,000/. Rest
Page 5
6
of the issues were decided in favour of the
appellants.
10. The appellants challenged the award of the
Tribunal by filing Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 765
of 2010 before the Chhattisgarh High Court for
enhancement of compensation. The National Insurance
Company also challenged the same award by filing
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515 of 2010 before the
Chhattisgarh High Court. Therefore, the appellants
withdrew their Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 765 of
2010 on 2.8.2010 with a liberty to file cross
objection for enhancement of compensation in
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515 of 2010. The
permission was so granted. The appellants filed
JUDGMENT
cross objection in Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515
of 2010 for enhancement of compensation.
11. The High Court by impugned order dated
12.11.2010 reduced the compensation to Rs.6,68,000/
by applying the multiplier of 13 and observed as
follows:
Page 6
7
“The impugned award of the Tribunal is
liable to be modified as we feel that looking
to the age of the deceased as 26 years, the
multiplier of 13 was to be applied according
to the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, but the learned
Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17.
Therefore, without changing the annual income
and other amounts as awarded by the Tribunal
on other heads, in our opinion, the
multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the
instant case. Thus the compensation towards
dependency would come to Rs.6,43,500/
(Rs.49,500 X 13 =6,43,500/). Besides this
amount, the claimants (father & mother of
deceased) are entitled to get Rs.10,000/
(each) (i.e. Rs.20,000/) on account of loss
of love & affection, Rs. 2,000/ on account
of funeral expenses and Rs.2500/ on account
of loss of estate as awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the Total amount comes to
Rs.6,68,000/ (Rs.6,43,500/+20,000/+2,000/
+2500/=Rs.6,68,000/). Therefore, the
claimants are entitled to get the said amount
of compensation instad of the amount as
awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants
would be entitled to get interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition. Rest of the conditions mentioned
in the impugned award shall remain intact.”
JUDGMENT
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the
appellants submitted that 50% deduction towards
‘personal and living expenses’ of the deceased is
totally disproportionate to the size of the his
family and as the family of the deceased bachelor
was large and there are three dependentnonearning
Page 7
8
members, the ‘personal and living expenses’ ought
to have been restricted to onethird and
contribution to the family should have been taken as
twothird. He further submitted that the High Court
committed serious error by applying multiplier of 13
which was against the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondentsInsurance Company submitted that the
deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali was unmarried boy aged
about 26 years and the High Court rightly applied
the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the
claimants, i.e. parents. According to the
respondents, the multiplier is to be applied as per
the age of the deceased or as per the age of the
JUDGMENT
claimant, whichever is higher but aforesaid
submission cannot be accepted in view of the finding
of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
14. We have considered the respective arguments and
perused the record. The questions which arise for
consideration are :
(i) What should be the deduction for
the ‘personal and living expenses of
Page 8
9
the deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali to
decide the question of the contribution
of the dependent members of the family;
and
(ii) What is the proper selection of
multiplier for deciding the claim.
15. The question relating to deduction for ‘personal
and living expenses’ and selection of multiplier
fell for consideration before this Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121. In the said case this Court taking into
consideration the decisions in Kerala SRTC v.
Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v.
Trilok Chand, (1996)4 SCC 362; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and
Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004)
JUDGMENT
2 SCC 473 , held as follows:
“(i) Re Question – Deduction for personal and
living expenses:
30. Though in some cases the deduction to
be made towards personal and living expenses
is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general
practice is to apply standardised
deductions. Having considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be
Page 9
1
onethird (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth
(1/5th) where the number of dependent family
members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and
the claimants are the parents, the deduction
follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is
assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married
in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings
is likely to be cut drastically. Further,
subject to evidence to the contrary, the
father is likely to have his own income and
will not be considered as a dependant and
the mother alone will be considered as a
dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependants, because they will
either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived
by parents and siblings, only the mother
would be considered to be a dependant, and
50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as
the contribution to the family. However,
where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger nonearning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to onethird and
contribution to the family will be taken as
twothird.”
JUDGMENT
(ii)Re Question Selection of multiplier
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to
be used should be as mentioned in Column (4)
of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative
Page 10
1
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15
to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M17 for
26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M
15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45
years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years,
that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56
to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5
for 66 to 70 years.”
16. Admittedly both the parents, Ist appellant
nd
Amrit Bhanu Shali (father) and 2 appellant Smt.
Sarlaben (mother) have been held to be dependents of
deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali and, therefore, the
nd
Tribunal held that the Ist appellant and 2
appellant have the right to get the compensation. On
rd
the date of the accident the 3 appellant Mamta
was not married but by the time the case was heard by
rd
the Tribunal the 3 appellantMamta had already been
married. In these circumstances, she is not found to
JUDGMENT
be dependent upon the deceased. Thus, both the
parents being dependents, i.e., father and the
mother, the Tribunal rightly restricted the ‘personal
and living expenses’ of the deceased to 50% and
contribution to the family was required to be taken
as 50% as per the decision of this Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (supra).
Page 11
1
17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age
of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of
dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the
deceased whose age may be different and, therefore,
the age of dependents has no nexus with the
computation of compensation.
18. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court
held that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said
judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of
18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the
death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to
have been applied. The Tribunal taking into
consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied
the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a
JUDGMENT
serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier
of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.
19. The appellants produced Income Tax Returns of
deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali for the years 2002 to
2008 which have been marked as Ext.P10C. The
Income Tax Return for the year 20072008 filed on
12.03.2008 at Raipur, four months prior to the
accident, shows the income of Rs.99,000/ per annum.
Page 12
1
The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the
aforesaid income of Rs.99,000/ for computing the
compensation. If the 50% of the income of Rs.99,000/
is deducted towards ‘personal and living expenses’ of
the deceased the contribution to the family will be
50%, i.e., Rs.49,500/ per annum. At the time of
the accident, the deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali was
26 years old, hence on the basis of decision in
Sarla Verma (supra) applying the multiplier of 17,
the amount will come to Rs.49,500/ x 17
=Rs.8,41,500/. Besides this amount the claimants
are entitled to get Rs.50,000/ each towards the
affection of the son, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/ and
Rs.10,000/ on account of funeral and ritual expenses
and Rs.2,500/ on account of loss of sight as awarded
JUDGMENT
by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total amount comes to
Rs.9,54,000/ (Rs.8,41,500/ + Rs.1,00,000/ +
Rs.10,000/ + Rs.2,500/) and the claimants are
entitled to get the said amount of compensation
instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the
High Court. They would also be entitled to get
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the filing of the claim petition leaving rest of the
Page 13
1
conditions mentioned in the award intact.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment dated 12.11.2010 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Appeal No.(C)
No.515 of 2010 is set aside and the award passed by
the Tribunal is modified to the extent above. The
amount which has already been received by the
claimantsappellants shall be adjusted and rest of
the amount be paid at an early date. No order as to
costs.
……………………………………………….J.
( G.S. SINGHVI )
……………………………………………….J.
( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
JUDGMENT
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 04, 2012
Page 14