Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim-deceased collided with a truck in the year 1995 – Victim died – Deceased was working as an Engineer with the Brtish Telecom and was paid in pounds – The wife and two minor children of the deceased sought compensation – Tribunal found the driver of the truck negligent – The income stood proved and the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 13 and reduced 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses – Loss of dependency was computed at Rs.78,33,540/- to which award, Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses were added – The total compensation awarded was Rs.79,04,540/- – The High Court affirmed the negligence of the truck driver and interfered with the quantum only to the extent of reducing the average exchange rate as existing in the years 1995 & 1996 – Whether the order of the High Court requires interference:
Held: Presumably the family pension was only payable to the wife and when she got remarried, the same was stopped – However, it cannot be said that the minor children were not entitled to the multiplier as adopted by the Tribunal – In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal & affirmed by the High Court – The compensation for loss of dependency would thus be; Rs.56,165 x 130% x 12 x 13 x 2/3rd = Rs.75,93,508/- – To the said amount would be added Rs.70,000/-, being the amounts granted by the Tribunal for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses – The total award hence would be Rs.76,63,508/-, as determined by the High Court too – Further, 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order – No illegality in awarding interest for future prospects – In SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020, the multiplier applied looking at the life span of the deceased and the claimants is 13 – Before the Tribunal itself, the case was pending for 12 years and the only amount received by the claimants was Rs.50,000/- – Hence though amounts are awarded for future prospects taking the multiplier of 13; in effect, the money is received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted – Similar is the case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 where the accident occurred in 2018, the multiplier applied is 17 and seven years have passed from the date of accident – The order of the High Court in both the cases is upheld and there is no reason to interfere with the same. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.