Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8612   OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31010 of 2010]

M. Mansoor & Anr. ..            Appellant(s)

-vs-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..             Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling  dissatisfied  with  the  reduction  of  compensation  

determined by the Motor  Claims  Tribunal,  Second  Small  

Causes  Court,  Chennai  in  Motor  Accident  Claim No.M.A.C.T.O.P.  

No.4973 of 2001, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

Page 2

2

-

3. The  deceased  Amjath  Khan  Arabu,  is  the  son  of  the  

appellants.   The  deceased  was  travelling  as  passenger  in  a  

Transport  Corporation Bus bearing registration no.TN-01-N-6587  

to Kumbakkonam from Tambaram on the Grand Southern Trunk  

Road, while the bus was proceeding near the village Silavattam, a  

container  lorry  bearing  registration  no.TN-01-C-6248  coming  

rashly and negligently in the opposite direction dashed against  

the Corporation Bus, resulting in the instantaneous death of five  

persons including the son of the appellants.  The parents of the  

deceased-Amjath Khan Arabu, filed a claim petition under Section  

166 of the Motors Vehicle Act (for short “the Act”) for awarding of  

compensation to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/-.  They pleaded that  

the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the  

container lorry, owned by the Respondent No.1 and that, at the  

time of his death the age of the deceased was 24 years and he  

was a MBA Graduate and employed as Business Manager in Intel  

Comox  Management  India  and  was  earning  Rs.18,100/-  per  

month.

Page 3

3

4. Respondent  No.1   did   not  appear  and was  set  Ex-parte.  

Respondent  No.2,   insurer  of  the  container  lorry,   filed  a  

written -

statement stating that the accident was not caused due to the  

negligence on the part of the driver of the container lorry and also  

denied  the  claimant’s  assertion  about  the  income of  their  son  

Amjath Khan Arabu.

5. Two other claim petitions, arising out of the same accident,  

were clubbed with the claim petition of the appellants and the  

Tribunal framed the following issues :

“1. As   to  who  is  the  cause   for   the      accident cited in these petitions?

2.  If  so, what  should be compensation       amount   which   are   liable   to   be       received in each of the petitions?”       

6. In support of the claim petitions the first appellant examined  

himself  as PW-1 and four other witnesses were also examined.  

PW-2  and  PW-4  were  travelling  in  the  bus  and  witnessed  the  

accident.  According to PW-1 the first appellant, their son Amjath  

Khan Arabu studied MBA and has been working as the Business

Page 4

4

Manager in the Firm called Intel Comox Management India and his  

salary  was  Rs.18,100/-.   Ex.A-1  to  A-10  were  marked  as  

documents  which  included  the  Post  Mortem  Certificate,  MBA  

Degree Certificate,  - Appointment Order for the Job done, Salary  

Certificate and copy of the Bank Account.  No evidence was let in  

by Respondent No.2.

7. After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal decided Issue No.1  

in the affirmative and held that accident was caused due to rash  

and  negligent  driving  of  container  lorry  owned  by  the  first  

respondent.

8. While dealing with the Issue No.2, the Tribunal accepted the  

evidence produced to show the employment of the deceased as  

Business Manager and his earning at Rs.18,100/- in the private  

company.  It also determined that the deceased was a bachelor  

aged  about  24  years  at  the  time  of  accident.   The  Tribunal  

deducted 1/3rd of his monthly salary and determined the loss of  

earnings to family at Rs.12,067/-.  The Tribunal then applied the  

multiplier 17 and declared that the claimants are entitled to get  

compensation of Rs.24,65,668/- with interest at the rate of 9% per  

annum from the date of claim petition.  

Page 5

5

9. Respondent  No.  2  the  Insurance  Company  challenged  the  

award of the Tribunal by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.676  

of 2005 before the High Court of judicature at Madras.   

-

10. The  High  Court  referred  to  the  decisions  of  this  Court  

including  Sarla  Verma vs.  Delhi  Transport  Corporation  

(2009)  6  SCC  121  and  by  the  impugned  judgment  dated  

30.4.2010  reduced  the  compensation  to  Rs.15,14,648/-  by  

applying multiplier of 12 and observed as follows :

……….“We  determine  the  Loss  of  monthly  Income/Pecuniary  Loss  in  respect of the deceased at Rs.15,100/- p.m. as an Equitable one and fair sum.  From and out of the sum of Rs.15,100/-  we deduct one third sum of Rs.5,033/-  towards  personal  expenses  of  the  deceased and the balance works out to  Rs.10,067/- and this sum, we aptly take  into  account  as  Loss  of  Income/Pecuniary  Loss  per  month  in  respect  of  the  death  of  the  deceased  son of the Respondents/Claimants.  Per  year,  it  comes  to  Rs.1,20,804/-  (Rs.10,067  x  12).   Since  the  First  Respondent/First Claimant’s (father) age  was  51  and  the  Second  Respondent/Second Claimant’s (mother)  aged about 46 at the time of the death  of the deceased son, we deem it fit and  proper  to  adopt  a  just  fair  and

Page 6

6

reasonable  multiplier  12  and  accordingly,  the  Loss  of  Income works  out to Rs.14,49,648/- (Rs.1,20,804 x 12).  Towards loss of Love and Affection, we  award  a  sum  of  Rs.50,000/-  to  the  Respondents/  Claimants.   Towards  Funeral  Expenses,  we award  a  sum of  Rs.5,000/-.  Towards Loss of Estate, we  grant a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  Thus, we - award  a  total  compensation  of  Rs.15,14,648/-  (Rupees  fifteen  lakhs  fourteen thousand six hundred and forty  eight only) with interest at 9% p.a. from  the date of accident till date of payment  with  pro  costs  payable  by  the  Appellant/Second Respondent Insurance  Company.”..……..      

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  

relied  upon  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Sarla  Verma case  

(supra) referred above and argued that the victim being aged 24  

years the multiplier of 18 should have been applied but the High  

Court committed a serious error by applying the multiplier of 12,  

which was against the law laid down by this Court in the said  

decision.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

Respondent  No.1-Insurance  Company  relying  upon  the  same  

decision in Sarla Verma case (supra) contended that deceased  

being a bachelor, deduction of 50% towards personal and living

Page 7

7

expenses ought to have been made and the Tribunal as well as  

the High Court  committed serious error  by deducting one-third  

(1/3rd) only which was against the law laid down by this Court in  

the said decision.  He also further contended that the deceased  

Amjath Khan Arabu was an unmarried -

person aged about 24 years and the High Court rightly applied  

the multiplier of 12 as per the age of the claimants (i.e.) parents.

12. We have considered the respective arguments and perused  

the record.  The questions which arise for consideration are :      

“1. What  should  be  the  deduction  for       the “personal  and living expenses”  

of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu to   decide   the   question   of    the  

    contribution to the parents?

2.  What   is   the   proper   selection  of       Multiplier for deciding the claim?”

13. The question relating to  deduction for  personal  and living  

expenses and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before  

this  Court  in  Sarla Verma vs.  Delhi  Transport Corporation  

(Supra) cited above and this Court referred to large number of  

precedents  including  the  judgments  in  U.P.  SRTC vs.  Trilok  

Chandra (1996)  4  SCC  362,  Nance vs.  British  Columbia

Page 8

8

Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC), Davies vs.  

Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2 (1942) 1 All  

ER  657  (HL)  and  made  an  attempt  to  limit  the  exercise  of  

discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of  

award of compensation by laying down -

straitjacket formula under different headings in its judgment some  

of which are enumerated below :  

“30. Though  in  some  cases  the  deduction  to  be  made  towards  personal  and  living  expenses  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  units  indicated  in  U.P.  SRTC vs.  Trilok  Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general  practice  is  to  apply  standardized  deductions.  Having considered several  subsequent decisions of  this  Court,  we  are of the view that where the deceased  was  married  the  deduction  towards  personal  and  living  expenses  of  the  deceased,  should  be  one-third  (1/3rd)  where the number of dependent family  members  is  2  to  3,  one-fourth  (1/4th)  where the number of dependent family  members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th)  where the number of dependent family  members exceeds six.

31. Where  the  deceased  was  a  bachelor  and  the  claimants  are  the  parents,  the  deduction  follows  a

Page 9

9

different  principle.   In  regard  to  bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as  personal and living expenses, because it  is assumed that a bachelor would tend  to  spend  more  on  himself.   Even  otherwise, there is also the possibility of  his  getting married in  a  short  time,  in  which  event  the  contribution  to  the  parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut  drastically.  Further, subject to evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  father  is  likely  to  have his - own income and will not be considered  as  a  dependant  and the  mother  alone  will  be considered as a dependant.   In  the absence of evidence to the contrary,  brothers  and  sisters  will  not  be  considered as dependants, because they  will either be independent and earning,  or  married,  or  be  dependant  on  the  father. 32. Thus even if  the deceased is  survived  by  parents  and  siblings,  only  the mother would be considered to be a  dependant,  and 50% would be treated  as the personal and living expenses of  the  bachelor  and  50%  as  the  contribution  to  the  family.   However,  where the family of the bachelor is large  and  dependent  on  the  income  of  the  deceased, as in a case where he has a  widowed  mother  and  large  number  of  younger non-earning sisters or brothers,  his personal and living expenses may be  restricted to  one-third  and contribution  to the family will be taken as two-third.”

Page 10

10

14. Admittedly,  both the parents namely the appellants herein  

have been held to be dependants to the deceased Amjath Khan  

Arabu and therefore, the Tribunal held that they have the right to  

get the compensation.   The Tribunal  as well  as the High Court  

made  a  deduction  of  1/3rd only  towards  personal  and  living  

expenses  of  the  deceased  and  as  rightly  contended  by  the  

learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, the deceased being a  

bachelor and the -

claimants being parents, the deduction of 50% has to be made as  

personal and living expenses as per the decision of this Court in  

Sarla Verma case (supra) extracted above.  The first question is  

determined accordingly.

15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court  

determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the  

parents/claimants.   This  Court in the decision in  Amrit Bhanu  

Shali  &  Ors. vs.  National  Insurance Company  Limited  &  

Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 held as follows :    

“15.  The  selection  of  multiplier  is  based on the age of the deceased and  not  on  the  basis  of  the  age  of  the  dependent.  There may be a number of  dependents of the deceased whose age

Page 11

11

may be different and, therefore, the age  of the dependents has no nexus with the  computation of compensation.”  

16. In the decision in Sarla Verma case (supra) this Court held  

that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column  

(4)  of  the  table  of  the  said  judgment  which  starts  with  an  

operative multiplier of 18.  As the age of the deceased at the time  

of the death was 24 years,  the multiplier  of 18 ought to have  

been applied.  The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of  

the deceased wrongly -

applied  the  multiplier  of  17  and  the  High  Court  committed  a  

serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12.

17. Appellants  produced  the  Salary  Certificate  of  deceased  

Amjath Khan Arabu, which has been marked as Ex.P-8.  It shows  

that  the  deceased  was  earning  Rs.18,100/-  per  month.   The  

Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid income  

for computing the compensation.  The annual income comes to  

Rs.2,17,200/-.   If  50% of  the  said  income is  deducted towards  

personal and living expenses of the deceased the contribution to  

the family will be Rs.1,08,600/-.  At the time of the accident the  

deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was a bachelor about 24 years old

Page 12

12

hence on the basis of the decision in Sarla Verma case (supra)  

applying  the  multiplier  of  18,  the  amount  will  come  to  

Rs.19,54,800/-.  Besides this amount the claimants are entitled to  

get Rs.50,000/- each towards the loss of affection of the son i.e.  

Rs.1,00,000/-  and  Rs.10,000/-  on  account  of  funeral  and  ritual  

expenses.    Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.20,64,800/-  

and  the  claimants  are  entitled  to  get  the  said  amount  of  

compensation instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and  

the High Court.  They would also be -entitled to get interest at the  

rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim  

petition till realization.   

18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment  

dated  30-4-2010  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madras  in  Civil  

Miscellaneous Appeal No.676 of 2005 is set aside and the award  

passed  by  the  Tribunal  is  modified  to  the  extent above.   The  

amount which has already been received by appellants/claimants  

shall  be  adjusted  and rest  of  the  amount  be  paid  at  an  early  

date.No order as to costs.        

…………………………….J. (G.S. Singhvi)

Page 13

13

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; October 03, 2013.