Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166 – Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 – r.3(1) – Appellant was travelling in a bus owned by the respondent-State Corporation – The Bus collided with a stationary lorry, which resulted in multiple injuries to numerous passengers including the appellant – The injuries to the appellant were grievous – She suffered a disability of 31.1% of the whole body – The appellant filed a claim petition u/s. 166 of MV Act r/w. 3(1) of the Rules, 1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The MACT found that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver – The MACT applied a multiplier of 17 to calculate the loss of earning power – The total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of Rs.35,24,288/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. payable by the respondent State Corporation – The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.25,00,000/- primarily on the ground that the multiplier method for quantifying loss of earning power was wrongly applied – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant claimed enhanced compensation of Rs. 41, 69,831/- under various heads along with claiming a revised interest rate @12% p.a. – Held: It is settled that in the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability and same will apply in the instant case as the age of the appellant was 23 years – Further, while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration – The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Case, considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case – The appellant had watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements – Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There are three aspects which are required to be examined: the application of multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’;
2. The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others. In para 42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be ‘18’ and not ‘17’. [Para 7(a)] [303-G-H; 304-A-C]
Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1%
3. In the factual contours of the present case, if the disability certificate is examined, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over
1 ½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. [Para 7(b)] [305A-B]
4.This Court has also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. [Para 7(b)] [305D-F]
5. This Court is thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case, more specifically para 59.3, considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case. [Para 7(b)] [305-F-G]
The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12%
6. In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case. On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court. [Para 7(c)] [305G-H; 306-A]
Conclusion
7. The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. [Para 8] [306-D-E]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR
100 ; Jagdish v. Mohan & Others (2018) 4 SCC
571 : [2018] 3 SCR 20 ; Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another (2017) 3 SCC 351 – relied on.
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009]
5 SCR 1098 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.