RAMRAO LALA BORSE AND ANR versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR on 19 January 2018

190

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 1 S.C.R.

ARAMRAO LALA BORSE AND ANR

v.

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR

(Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2018)

JANUARY 19, 2018

B

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

s.166 – Fatal accident of a 29 years old bachelor – Claim forCcompensation by his parents (agd 65 and 50 years) – Tribunal, onthe basis of age of the deceased adopted multiplier of 17 andawarded compensation – High Court reduced the compensationamount, adopting multiplier of 7 on the basis of the age of claimants– Appeal by the claimants – Held: The correct multiplier to be appliedDin the present case would be 17, having regard to the age of thedeceased – Compensation amount enhanced accordingly.

Appellants-claimants filed petition u/s. 166 of Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of their son in a motoraccident. Trial Court using multiplier of 17 having regard to the age ofthe deceased (29 years) awarded compensation of Rs.61,20,000/- andEadded further sum of Rs.35,000/- under conventional heads. Interestwas awarded at 9% p.a. High Court adopted multiplier of 7 on the basisof age of the claimants (65 and 50) and reduced the compensaton amountto Rs.26,45,000/- with interst @ 9% p.a. Hence the present appeal bythe claimants.

F

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The correct multiplier to be applied in the presentcase would be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased. Asregards future prospects, an addition of 50 percent would bewarranted. On the above basis and making a deduction of 50Gpercent towards personal expenses (the deceased being abachelor), the total compensation would stand quantified at Rs61,20,000/-. After making an addition on account of conventionalheads, the total compensation would stand computed at Rs61,90,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.

H

from the date of the filing of the claim petition. Apportionmentshall be carried out in terms of the award of the Tribunal. [Para8][193-G; 194-A-B]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 13 SCALE 12 - followed.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2009] 5SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 - relied on.

Case Law Reference

(2017) 13 SCALE 12 followedPara 8[2009] 5 SCR 1098 relied onPara 8

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 418 of2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2015 by the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 724 of 2015.

Anand Mishra, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J., 1. The present appeal arisesfrom a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay dated 23 October 2015. The High Court haspartly allowed the appeal of the insurer and reduced the award ofcompensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fromRs 61,55,000/- to Rs 26,45,000/-.

2. The claim before the Tribunal arose thus:

On 19 February 2006, Deepak was travelling as a passenger in aluxury bus on Mumbai-Agra road and was occupying a seat on the driver’sside. When the bus was at Atgaon in Nashik district, a truck bearingRegistration No.RJ-01-G-6386 came from the opposite direction andcollided with the bus resulting in grievous injuries to the passengersincluding Deepak. Deepak was shifted to the Government hospital atNashik where he succumbed to his injuries.

3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was serving as anAssistant Teacher in Dadasaheb Dandekar Vidyalaya, a school run by A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AShishu Vihar Education Society. The claimants, who were his parents,filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 seekingcompensation against the owner of the offending truck and the insurer.The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash andnegligent act of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal acceptedthe evidence adduced by the Claimants that had the deceased survived,Bhe would have been made permanent and would have been entitled tothe benefit of 6[th] Pay Commission wages of at least Rs 40,000 per month.Adopting a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs61,20,000/- to which it added a further sum of Rs 35,000/- underconventional heads. Interest was awarded @9% p.a.C4. The High Court, on an analysis of the evidence, confirmed thefinding of negligence arrived at by the Tribunal. On compensation, theHigh Court noted that the salary certificate (Exh.42) dated 18 March2013 indicated that the deceased was working as an Assistant Teacheron a temporary basis in the secondary section of Shishu Vihar EducationDSociety between June 2001 and February 2006. The income certificateindicated that in February 2006 the deceased was in receipt of a salaryof Rs 2,800 per month. Another certificate issued by the Headmasteron 20 March 2006 (Exh.47) indicated the same position.

5. The case of the claimants rested on the premise that theEdeceased was likely to be made permanent in which event, he would beentitled to a higher salary. PW 3, who was the Secretary of the Trust,deposed that though the strength of the students had increased, and theworkload had increased, persons such as the deceased continued inservice on a contract basis for want of sanction from the governmentfor the post. The High Court observed that the evidence of PW 3 wasFthat if the government were to sanction the post, considering the seniorityand experience of the deceased, the Trust would have appointed him asa permanent teacher in which event his salary, according to the scalesof the 6[th] Pay Commission, would have been Rs 40,000 per month. Thefinding was that the deceased at the relevant time was 29 years of age;Gthat he had completed his B.Ed. from the University of Mumbai andwas an Assistant Teacher employed on a temporary/contract basis forteaching English from 2001 to 2006. The High Court adverted to theprovisions contained in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In this background, theHigh Court arrived at the finding that if the deceased were to be alive,H

he would have been regularized and would have drawn a salary of Rs40,000/- per month. The High Court held that an addition of 50 per centon account of future prospects ought to have been made. However, theHigh Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 17.Having regard to the fact that the father of the deceased was 65 yearsold in 2006 and his mother was 50 years old, the High Court came to theconclusion that a multiplier of 7 should be adopted, taking the averageage of the parents as 61 years. The High Court held that since thedeceased was a bachelor, a deduction of 50 per cent should be made onaccount of personal expenses. On the above basis, the High Courtcomputed the yearly income of the deceased at Rs 4,80,000; enhancedthe income by 50% on the ground of future prospects to Rs 7,20,000,deducted a sum of Rs 3,60,000 towards personal expenses and on thebasis of a multiplier of 7 arrived at a total compensation of Rs 25,20,000.The amount payable to each of the two claimants for loss of love andaffection was enhanced to Rs 50,000 and funeral expenses of Rs 25,000were allowed. The High Court has, accordingly, awarded a totalcompensation of Rs 26,45,000 together with interest @ 9% p.a.

6. The principal ground which has been urged in support of theappeal is that the High Court erred in applying a multiplier of 7. Sincethe age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 29 years, it wasurged that the correct multiplier to be applied would be 17.

7. The insurer had challenged the judgment of the High Courtbefore this Court in Special Leave Petition (C ) No 7717 of 2016. TheSpecial Leave Petition was dismissed on 25 April 2016. The challengeof the insurer to the judgment of High Court has hence failed.Consequently, for the purpose of the present appeal, we will have toproceed on the basis of the income as accepted by the High Court. Thefinding of fact in regard to the income of the deceased would not bechallenged in the present appeal, at the behest of the insurer in view ofthe above background.

8. In terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Courtin National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi[1]and thejudgment in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[2], the correctmultiplier to be applied in the present case would be 17 having regard tothe age of the deceased. As regards future prospects, an addition of 50

1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aper cent would be warranted. On the above basis and making a deductionof 50 per cent towards personal expenses (the deceased being abachelor), the total compensation would stand quantified at Rs 61,20,000/-. After making an addition on account of conventional heads, the totalcompensation would stand computed at Rs 61,90,000/-. The aforesaidamount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of theBclaim petition. Apportionment shall be carried out in terms of the awardof the Tribunal.

9. The appeal shall accordingly stand allowed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

C

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H