Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 166 – Fatal accident – Of 50 year old person – Claim for compensation – Tribunal while awarding compensation applied multiplier of 13 and gave 30% towards future prospects – High Court reduced the compensation amount by granting 15% towards future prospects – However, High Court maintained multiplier of
13 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since High Court maintained the multiplier of 13, there was no justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects – Compensation awarded by Tribunal was just and reasonable – Compensation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The High Court, while maintaining the multiplier of 13 has reduced the compensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged
50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such the compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%. So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of
40 to 50 years, the High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects. [Para 8] [263-C-F]
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 –
relied on.
2. If the age of the deceased is in the age group of 40 to
50 years as regards future prospects addition should be 30%. For application of multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospects at 15% only. In absence of any challenge to the findings recorded by the High Court confirming the application of multiplier of 13, the High Court has committed error in reducing the compensation on account of loss of dependency. For loss of love and affection, when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not entitled for another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at the same time though the appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards the respective heads. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/ought not have been reduced by the High Court. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same was interfered with by the High Court without any valid grounds. [Paras 8 and 9] [263-G-H; 264-A-D]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
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.