Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5193 1997
of 1 an
PETITIONER:
Abati Bezbaruah
RESPONDENT:
Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2003
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.B. SINHA, J :
The claimant is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 10th April, 1996 passed by
the High Court of Gauhati in M.A. (F) No. 208 of 1994 modifying an award
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal"), Shillong in M.A.C. Case No. 20 of 1991.
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The husband of the
appellant herein late (Dr.) Ramani Kanta Bezbaruah met with a fatal
accident on 13th November, 1990 while he was proceeding on a scooter
whence a jeep bearing registration No. MLK-5548 dashed against it. The
claimant claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 27,46,000/- before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, having regard to
the deceased’s salary which at the relevant point of time was Rs. 3500/- per
month, calculated the monthly dependency at Rs. 1700/-. The Tribunal
calculated the life expectancy of the deceased to be 65 years, and the age of
the deceased at the time of accident being 40 years, applied 15 as multiplier.
However, from the said amount, 20% was directed to be deducted towards
uncertainty of life as well as 10% for getting the lump sum amount and thus
on that basis the amount of compensation which would have otherwise
come to Rs. 3, 06,000/- was reduced to Rs. 2,14,200/-. A sum of Rs. 3,000/-
was, however, awarded as expenses incurred by the family for the treatment
of the deceased, and travelling expenses etc. A further sum of Rs. 3,000/-
was awarded by way of loss of consortium, Rs. 6000/- towards the expenses
of cremation, Rs. 3,000/- for loss of love and affection. On the said basis a
total compensation of Rs. 2,50,200/- was awarded. It was further directed
that the awarded amount be paid to the claimants with interest at the rate of
6% per annum. The High Court in appeal, however, held that having regard
to the income of the deceased, which was Rs. 3500/- per month, the loss of
dependency should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. So far
as rate of interest is concerned, the same was also directed to be enhanced to
8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the date of the receipt
of the awarded amount.
Mr. A.P. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant raised two contentions in support of this appeal. The learned
counsel would firstly submit that the rate of interest prevailing at the
relevant time being 10%, the High Court erred in granting interest at the rate
of 8% per annum. The learned counsel in support of the said contentions
relied upon R.L. Gupta and Others Vs. Jupitor General Insurance Company
and Others [(1990) 1 SCC 356], Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Others Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 9] and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others
[(2002) 6 SCC 281].
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
The learned counsel would next contend as the appellant was earning
about Rs. 3500/- per month, i.e. Rs. 42,000/- per year, upon deducting one
third thereof from the said amount, a sum of Rs. 28,000/- per annum should
have been held to the loss of dependency and in that view of the matter the
amount of compensation should have been calculated by applying multiplier
of 16 as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 40 years.
Mr. Ashok Bhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, would submit that in a case of this nature
awarding of interest at the rate of 9% would be fair having regard to the
decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The
learned counsel, would further draw our attention to the fact that multiplier
of 10 was applied in that case.
The question as to what should be rate of interest, in the opinion of
this Court, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at
the relevant time.
In R.L. Gupta (supra), interest at the rate of 12% was awarded.
However, no reason has been assigned in support thereof.
In Kaushnuma Begum (supra) the amount of compensation was
directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the
date of claim. The same rate of interest was awarded, as noticed
hereinbefore, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
We are of the opinion that the amount of interest should, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, be paid at the rate of 9%
per annum.
The structured formula base has been set out in the Second Schedule
to the Motor Vehicles Act.
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 of 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.
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.
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.
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/-.
This appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned hereinbefore.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3