Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     5179      OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 11345 of 2007)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.                       ...Appellant

VERSUS

GOPALI & ORS.                                     ...Respondents

O      R      D      E      R   

Leave granted.

India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing  

constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary,  

aided by a proficient bar and supported by the State.  

However, the Courts and Tribunals, which the citizens are  

expected to approach for redressal of their grievance and  

protection of their fundamental, constitutional and legal  

rights, are beset with the problems of delays and costs.  

In a country where 36 per cent of the population live  

below the poverty line, these deficiencies in the justice  

delivery system prevent a large segment of the

Page 2

2

population from availing legal remedies. The disadvantaged  

and poor are deprived of access to justice because of the  

costs of litigation, both in terms of actual expenses and  

lost opportunities, and the laudable goal of securing  

justice - social, economic and political enshrined in the  

Preamble to the Constitution of India remains an illusion  

for them.  The infrastructure of Courts and the processes  

which govern them are simply inaccessible to the poor. The  

State, which has been mandated by  Article 39A of the  

Constitution to ensure that the operation of the legal  

system promotes justice by providing free legal aid and  

that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to  

any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities,  

has not been able to create an effective mechanism for  

making justice accessible to the poor, downtrodden and  

disadvantaged. In last two and a half decades the  

institution of the legal services authorities has rendered  

yeoman's service in the field of providing legal aid to  

the poor but a lot is required to be done for ensuring  

justice to economically deprived section of the society  

and those who suffer from other disabilities like  

illiteracy and ignorance.

We have prefaced the disposal of this petition, filed

Page 3

3

against order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Division Bench  

of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeal  

filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned  

Single Judge was dismissed as not maintainable, by making  

the aforementioned observations because in last almost 20  

years the claimants - the aged parents, wife and five  

children of Nanag Ram, who became a victim of road  

accident in 1992, must have exhausted all their resources  

in prosecuting and contesting the litigation till the  

stage of High Court and they must not have been left with  

money sufficient for engaging an advocate in this Court  

and also because in last almost five years, during which  

the special leave petition remained pending in this Court,  

they must have lost all hopes to get justice. The learned  

Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the appeal  

filed by the dependants of Nanag Ram under Section 173 of  

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and  

enhanced the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims  

Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by an amount  

of Rs.4,85,000/- and directed the appellant to pay the  

enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per  

cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition  

till  31.12.2000  and  at  the  rate  of  9  per cent from

Page 4

4

1.1.2001 till the payment thereof, but on account of ex-

parte interim order passed by this Court on 23.7.2007, the  

claimants could get a paltry sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and they  

perhaps thought that it will not be worthwhile to spend  

money for contesting the special leave petition filed by  

the appellant. This is perhaps the thinking of many  

thousands of poor litigants, who succeed in the Courts  

below and the High Courts but cannot afford the cost and  

expenses of contesting litigation in the highest Court of  

the country and suffer silently in the name of the  

Almighty God by treating it as their destiny.

Nanag Ram died in a road accident which occurred on  

9.3.1992 when his motorcycle was struck by a truck owned  

by respondent No.10-Ram Chandra Paliwal and driven by  

Raghu Nath, whose name was deleted from the array of  

parties vide order dated 2.4.2009. At the time of  

accident, Nanag Ram's age was about 36 years and he was  

employed as a Machine Operator in National Engineering  

Company Ltd., Jaipur for a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month.  

The dependants of Nanag Ram filed a petition under  

Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation to the  

tune of Rs.24 lakhs by alleging that their bread winner  

had died due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by

Page 5

5

Shri Raghu Nath. While the owner of the truck and its  

driver did not file a reply to contest the claim petition,  

the appellant raised all possible objections. In the reply  

filed on behalf of the appellant it was prayed that the  

claimants be directed to prove whether the driver of the  

offending vehicle was in the employment of the owner and  

had a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant  

also sought a direction to the owner for production of the  

original insurance policy and, as is usually done in such  

cases, it claimed that the accident was not caused due to  

rash and negligent driving of the truck. An alternative  

plea taken by the appellant was that if an award is  

passed, the contributory negligence of both the drivers be  

determined.  

After considering the pleadings and evidence of the  

parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused  

due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The  

Tribunal also accepted the claimants' assertion that the  

deceased was employed as a Machine Operator in National  

Engineering Company, Jaipur. The Tribunal then referred to  

the evidence produced by the claimants on the issue of  

monthly income of the deceased and held that it could be  

taken  as  Rs.3,000/-  per  month.   After  deducting 1/3rd

Page 6

6

towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of  

10, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants are entitled  

to total compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at  

the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f. 5.9.1992.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court took  

cognizance of the fact that the employer was annually  

paying bonus to the deceased at the rate of 20 per cent of  

his salary, referred to the judgment of this Court in  

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation  

v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and held that the  

claimants are entitled to total compensation of  

Rs.6,45,300/-. The learned Single Judge made additions of  

small amounts towards pains and sufferings, loss of love  

and affection, consortium, security and protection and  

directed the appellant to pay an additional amount of  

Rs.4,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per  

annum.  

The special appeal filed by the appellant was  

dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by  

relying upon Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On 23.7.2007, this Court ordered notice on the  

special leave petition and indirectly stayed the judgment  

of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. For the

Page 7

7

sake of reference that order is extracted below:

“Issue notice.

Without prejudice to the claims involved, let the  petitioner deposit a sum of Rupees three lakhs  with the concerned MACT within four weeks from  today. A sum of Rupees two lakhs shall be  permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant without  furnishing security.”

As is the fate of large number of other special leave  

petitions, this petition was not listed before the Court  

for next five years for effective hearing and the  

appellant continued to enjoy the benefit of ex-parte  

interim order.  For the first time, the case was listed  

before the Registrar on 15.10.2008 i.e. after almost one  

year and three months of the issue of notice. The  

Registrar noted that notice has not been served upon  

respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and an application has been  

filed for deleting respondent No. 9 from the array of  

parties. On 2.4.2009, the application was allowed by the  

Chamber Judge. For next two years and five months, the  

file of the case did not see the light of the day. On  

14.9.2011, the case was listed before the Registrar, who  

recorded the statement of the appellant's counsel that he  

does not want to bring on record the legal representatives  

of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. On 12.10.2011, the matter was

Page 8

8

again listed before the Registrar, who directed that the  

matter be placed before the Chamber Judge. When the matter  

was listed before the Chamber Judge, he noted that the  

legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are  

already on record. It should be a matter of concern for  

those who are associated with this institution as to why  

an ex-parte interim order passed by the Court should  

continue to operate for years together without the matter  

being listed for effective hearing. If the claimants had  

been members of economically affluent sections of the  

society, they would have engaged an eminent advocate and  

taken steps for hearing of the matter at an early date  

but, as noted earlier, they do not have the financial  

capacity and resources to engage any advocate for  

contesting the special leave petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and  

carefully perused the record.

In our view, the appellant's challenge to the  

impugned order is meritless and the appeal is liable to be  

dismissed. We are also convinced that this is a fit case  

in which the Court should exercise power under Article 142  

of the Constitution and enhance the compensation  

determined by the High Court by applying appropriate

Page 9

9

multiplier.   

We shall first consider whether the High Court was  

justified in not applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction  

towards personal expenses of the deceased.  

In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)  

6 SCC 121, the two Judge Bench made an endeavor to  

standardise the parameters for determination of the  

compensation payable by the insurer and / or the owner of  

the offending vehicle. While dealing with the issue of  

deduction towards personal expenses, the Court made the  

following observations:  

“We have already noticed that the  personal and living expenses of the  deceased should be deducted from the  income, to arrive at the contribution  to the dependants. No evidence need be  led to show the actual expenses of the  deceased. In fact, any evidence in that  behalf will be wholly unverifiable and  likely to be unreliable. The claimants  will obviously tend to claim that the  deceased was very frugal and did not  have any expensive habits and was  spending virtually the entire income on  the family. In some cases, it may be  so. No claimant would admit that the  deceased was a spendthrift, even if he  was one.

It is also very difficult for the  respondents in a claim petition to

Page 10

10

produce   evidence  to  show  that  the  

deceased was spending a considerable  part of the income on himself or that  he was contributing only a small part  of the income on his family. Therefore,  it became necessary to standardise the  deductions to be made under the head of  personal and living expenses of the  deceased. This lead to the practice of  deducting towards personal and living  expenses of the deceased, one-third of  the income if the deceased was married,  and one-half (50%) of the income if the  deceased was a bachelor. This practice  was evolved out of experience, logic  and convenience. In fact one-third  deduction got statutory recognition  under the Second Schedule to the Act,  in respect of claims under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (“the  MV Act”, for short). But, such  percentage of deduction is not an  inflexible rule and offers merely a  guideline.”

The Bench then referred to the judgments in Kerala State  

Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC  

176, U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and  

Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004) 2 SCC  

473 and held:  

“Though in some cases the deduction to be  made towards personal and living expenses  is calculated on the basis of units  indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general  practice is to apply standardised  deductions. Having considered several  subsequent decisions of this Court, we are  of the view that where the deceased was

Page 11

11

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.”

The issue was recently considered in Santosh Devi v.  

National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal  

No.3723 of 2012 decided on 23.3.2012) and it was observed:  

“It is also not possible to approve the  view taken by the Tribunal which has been  reiterated by the High Court albeit without  assigning reasons that the deceased would  have spent 1/3rd of his total earning,  i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards personal expenses.  It seems that the Presiding Officer of the  Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of  the High Court were totally oblivious of  the hard realities of the life.  It will be  impossible for a person whose monthly  income is Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on  himself leaving 2/3rd for the family  consisting of five persons. Ordinarily,  such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th  of his income on himself or use that amount  as personal expenses and leave the rest for  his family.”  

National Sample Survey Report No. 527 on Household  

Consumer Expenditure in India 2006-07, which has been  

prepared after conducting thorough research on the subject  

contains the figures of monthly per capita expenditure

Page 12

12

(MPCE) for various classes. These are extracted below:

Page 13

13

Table 5R: Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE classes All-India

monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.) item group

0 - 235 - 270 - 320 - 365 - 410 - 455 - 510 - 580 - 690 - 890 - 1155 & 235 270 320 365 410 455 510 580 690 890 1155 more

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) cereals 67.12 76.36 88.88 95.46 96.64 102.97 107.42 114.03 120.46 125.43 129.52 144.23 gram 0.27 1.04 0.68 0.50 0.68 0.85 0.64 0.88 1.03 1.33 1.73 2.91 cereal substitutes 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.21 0.41 0.45 0.83 1.94 pulses and their products 5.14 8.11 11.62 13.34 14.45 16.95 18.96 20.54 22.68 27.02 31.42 40.18 milk and milk products 2.86 9.39 8.73 12.07 19.43 27.33 31.27 39.97 52.41 75.89 96.72 151.72 edible oil 7.85 11.47 15.38 16.82 18.93 21.50 23.16 25.36 27.37 32.01 36.68 44.49 egg, fish and meat 3.38 6.31 7.44 10.39 13.29 15.00 17.75 19.79 24.31 29.50 38.74 52.13 vegetables 14.91 20.67 25.39 28.91 30.20 34.50 36.62 40.01 44.79 49.98 56.44 67.88 fruits: fresh 1.11 1.46 2.01 2.82 3.70 4.18 5.19 6.17 8.99 11.75 16.75 32.28 fruits: dry 0.04 0.08 0.30 0.81 0.74 1.04 1.14 1.56 1.87 2.69 4.30 8.82 sugar 3.21 5.06 6.16 7.07 8.10 9.05 10.77 12.04 14.07 17.12 20.61 27.87 salt 0.69 0.79 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.14 1.21 1.38 1.51 1.77 1.99 spices 5.32 7.50 8.30 9.70 10.77 11.63 12.54 13.90 15.28 17.18 20.19 24.27 beverages, etc. 5.09 7.46 10.29 11.72 14.78 16.27 19.10 22.21 25.79 33.65 46.72 92.60 total: food 117.01 155.76 186.10 210.63 232.76 262.53 285.92 317.88 360.84 425.50 502.44 693.32 pan 0.23 0.41 0.96 1.44 1.87 1.65 1.74 1.99 2.92 3.26 4.67 4.43 tobacco 1.91 3.84 4.80 5.97 5.68 6.05 7.40 8.71 9.02 9.89 11.05 15.17 intoxicants 1.92 2.28 3.58 3.40 4.91 4.11 4.22 4.53 5.90 6.35 7.77 17.63 fuel and light 31.32 36.04 35.25 39.35 43.42 47.66 51.54 58.75 65.74 75.82 90.22 123.85 clothing 15.69 17.42 20.07 23.48 26.64 27.53 32.96 36.54 41.49 49.31 60.54 85.99 footwear 2.26 2.08 2.14 2.71 3.50 3.62 4.36 5.07 5.98 7.97 10.27 15.73

Page 14

14

Table 5R (contd.): Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE  classes All-India

monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)

item group 0 - 235 - 270 - 320 - 365 - 410 - 455 - 510 - 580 - 690 - 890 - 1155 & 235 270 320 365 410 455 510 580 690 890 1155 more

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) education 1.91 2.14 2.98 5.32 6.07 7.19 8.70 11.03 15.74 24.54 33.70 95.17 medical-institutional 0.25 0.58 0.80 1.57 4.07 4.14 3.67 4.42 5.40 11.31 24.02 94.38 medical-non-inst. 5.26 5.63 9.85 11.75 11.90 17.98 19.29 23.94 28.05 42.80 57.93 125.53 entertainment 0.64 0.69 0.50 0.81 1.71 1.34 2.40 2.34 3.80 4.68 8.76 18.36 goods for personal care 0.23 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.92 0.59 1.08 1.41 1.44 1.99 2.52 4.61 toilet articles 5.42 6.32 7.60 9.41 10.25 11.42 12.79 14.49 16.79 20.18 24.61 43.52 sundry articles 3.98 5.45 5.95 7.14 8.10 9.31 10.38 12.18 14.26 17.12 22.46 31.90 cons. services excluding conveyance 4.31 5.46 7.29 8.20 9.96 11.85 14.33 16.21 21.56 30.51 48.92 109.15 conveyance 2.60 4.07 3.26 4.59 7.16 7.57 10.11 12.04 15.42 26.39 44.51 114.97 rent 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.23 0.37 0.77 0.65 0.94 2.48 4.31 19.31 taxes and cesses 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.47 0.38 0.58 0.84 0.90 1.16 1.85 2.74 6.46 durable goods total 2.45 6.20 4.59 6.45 6.26 7.44 8.54 11.57 15.76 17.77 40.57 138.13 total: non-food 80.44 99.05 110.10 132.70 153.03 170.40 195.11 226.78 271.40 354.20 499.56 1064.28 total expenditure 197.45 254.81 296.20 343.33 385.79 432.93 481.03 544.66 632.23 779.69 1002.01 1757.60 clothing: second hand 0.29 1.12 0.36 0.29 0.39 0.40 0.50 0.26 0.21 0.33 0.27 0.19 footwear: second hand 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 2nd hand durable goods 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.34 0.94 5.00 estd. no. hhs(00) 19254 27459 57024 72159 107622 118332 146398 170830 242565 259952 186193 200894 estd. no. pers(00) 93943 159161 336277 402184 628541 646317 769698 883179 1133508 1197816 799958 733037 no. of sample households 228 299 698 1137 1559 1888 2413 3190 4580 6029 4654 6471 no. of sample persons 1167 1785 4262 6569 9053 10427 13327 16902 23846 29967 21960 25820

Page 15

15

Table 5U: Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE classes

All-India

monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)

0 – 335

335 – 395

395 – 485

485 – 580

580 – 675

675 – 790

790 – 930

930  -1100

1100  -1380

1380- 1880

1880-  2540

2540 &  more

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) cereals 72.87 85.96 90.75 99.71 105.84 107.86 114.19 117.79 124.64 131.56 142.38 151.16 gram 0.42 0.47 0.56 0.74 0.94 1.02 1.40 1.73 2.02 2.44 2.55 3.00 cereal substitutes 0.06 0.09 0.20 0.34 0.26 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.52 0.60 0.75 1.02 pulses and their products 12.12 15.17 17.13 20.62 22.74 25.13 27.37 29.24 32.13 36.60 40.93 47.25 milk and milk products 11.25 20.39 25.29 33.76 46.68 57.50 69.83 89.31 107.14 138.01 161.88 235.62 edible oil 14.12 18.39 20.81 23.42 27.76 30.42 33.38 36.21 42.06 46.33 52.12 59.81 egg, fish and meat 6.93 10.97 15.13 19.44 24.33 25.20 29.93 30.71 37.40 41.02 51.46 67.53 vegetables 20.84 27.36 30.75 37.88 39.80 43.50 50.49 54.18 62.46 70.31 77.18 98.71 fruits: fresh 2.63 3.59 4.62 7.01 8.63 10.16 13.03 15.39 21.44 29.66 40.18 71.11 fruits: dry 0.44 0.87 1.31 1.35 1.73 2.54 2.78 3.62 4.81 7.18 13.28 23.46 sugar 7.14 8.67 10.65 11.01 13.41 14.71 16.05 17.94 19.17 20.20 22.76 25.53 salt 0.88 0.96 1.10 1.21 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.68 1.82 1.88 2.03 2.35 spices 7.70 10.20 12.02 13.98 14.97 16.37 17.37 19.08 20.40 21.50 23.75 28.40 beverages, etc. 13.00 16.89 18.39 25.11 29.26 35.05 41.58 50.99 66.57 91.22 126.27 271.33 total: food 170.42 219.98 248.70 295.59 337.73 371.37 419.42 468.31 542.58 638.49 757.51 1086.28 pan 0.72 1.30 1.88 2.66 2.21 2.62 2.78 3.02 3.82 3.66 4.41 4.09 tobacco 3.81 4.36 5.90 8.08 6.78 8.22 8.81 9.26 8.85 10.00 9.92 17.03 intoxicants 1.50 1.69 3.44 4.38 5.16 4.28 5.40 4.49 6.31 7.21 6.73 16.04 fuel and light 38.42 47.01 56.77 64.68 73.68 85.05 92.24 107.32 123.75 143.54 171.36 255.81 clothing 19.05 22.96 28.70 31.85 37.90 43.39 49.12 59.90 67.98 85.86 114.21 188.80 footwear 2.59 3.12 4.21 4.67 5.95 7.22 8.53 10.36 12.49 16.94 23.06 38.19

Page 16

16

Table 5U (contd.): Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) by groups of items for households in  different MPCE classes All India Urban

no. of hhs  reporting

consumption monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)

item group per  

1000 hhs

Sample  hhs

0 - 335 - 395 - 485 - 580 - 675 - 790 - 930 - 1100 - 1380 - 1880 - 2540 & all 335 395 485 580 675 790 930 1100 1380 1880 2540 more classes

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) education 5.27 6.35 11.39 13.21 21.68 26.58 38.02 48.73 68.44 110.25 182.02 424.68 91.60 721 22518 medical-institutional 2.34 1.10 2.43 6.17 3.94 8.64 10.39 12.16 16.90 24.35 40.18 128.41 24.35 140 4199 medical-non-inst. 8.69 12.90 18.23 24.15 25.34 34.30 44.93 46.19 55.71 73.29 95.96 167.96 58.23 718 21973 entertainment 0.77 1.60 2.91 4.97 7.14 9.09 12.55 16.06 22.37 32.77 48.10 87.27 24.05 581 19683 goods for personal care 0.22 0.37 0.51 0.59 0.67 1.15 1.41 2.36 2.08 3.30 6.58 10.97 2.88 133 5258 toilet articles 8.77 10.66 12.76 15.53 18.44 21.17 24.14 27.43 32.82 41.09 52.05 72.65 31.82 998 30516 sundry articles 6.18 8.35 9.75 12.27 14.40 16.87 19.41 21.50 26.65 33.32 43.24 63.92 26.09 992 30388 cons. services excluding conveyance 7.04 9.85 13.50 15.78 21.54 29.19 38.73 54.04 75.79 118.46 201.07 447.68 98.57 979 29926 conveyance 4.61 4.88 7.09 10.77 18.12 23.05 29.58 45.66 67.06 103.32 162.52 369.38 81.63 842 26258 rent 3.25 5.98 7.08 12.33 14.33 24.18 32.43 46.06 59.31 91.58 125.05 264.55 66.96 365 10449 taxes and cesses 0.65 1.56 1.96 2.31 3.41 5.00 5.68 7.42 8.76 11.72 18.93 42.49 10.52 521 16087 durable goods total 2.59 3.85 5.71 7.37 9.53 12.40 15.83 20.77 28.46 51.14 96.82 382.12 59.21 818 24981 total: non-food 116.48 147.88 194.23 241.77 290.24 362.40 439.97 542.72 687.55 961.82 1402.2

1 2982.0

6 795.25 1000 30583

total expenditure 286.90 367.85 442.94 537.36 627.96 733.77 859.40 1011.0 4

1230.1 4

1600.3 1

2159.7 2

4068.3 4

1312.5 0

1000 30583

clothing: second hand 0.82 0.53 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.25 38 1587 footwear: second hand 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 9 276 2nd hand durable goods 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.50 1.08 0.87 6.14 0.92 11 304 imputed rent 50.98 60.83 73.44 91.30 107.16 123.44 143.57 170.39 211.24 284.56 472.82 826.60 245.22 653 20248 estd. no. hhs(00) 6764 9524 23316 37046 38559 46300 58647 62420 78203 82775 58892 75987 578434 estd. no. pers(00) 36334 59014 138395 195388 207808 228906 275815 275004 324424 312892 209981 219963 248392

5 no. of sample households 265 335 837 1259 1423 1795 2269 2561 3939 5885 4739 5276 30583 no. of sample persons 1539 2101 4983 6902 7623 9220 11009 11810 17022 23096 16372 15151 126828

Page 17

17

Here, we are dealing with a case in which the  

deceased had 8 dependents including four sons and one  

daughter.  The question which arises for our  

consideration is whether in 1992 a person having an  

income of less than Rs.3,000/- and a family of 9 could  

think of spending 1/3rd of his income on himself. On a  

conservative estimate, it is possible to say, he would  

have spent at least 50% of the income on the purchase  

of foodgrains, milk, etc., and for payment of water,  

electricity and other bills. 25% of the income would  

have been spent on the education of children which  

would have included school/college fee, cost of books,  

etc. 15% of the income would have been used for meeting  

other family necessities, like, clothes, medical  

expenses, etc. He would have then been left with 10% of  

his income, a portion of which could be used to meet  

unforeseen contingencies and on the occasion of  

festivals. In this scenario, any deduction towards  

personal expenses would be unrealistic. In any case,  

where the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons  

or more having an income of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-,  

it is virtually impossible for him to spend more than  

1/10th of the total income upon himself.

Page 18

18 What we have observed hereinabove may not apply to  

rich people living in urban areas who can afford to  

spend a substantial amount of their income in clubs,  

hotels and on drinks parties. In those cases, there may  

be a semblance of justification in applying the rule of  

1/3rd deduction but it would be wholly unrealistic to  

universally apply that rule in all cases.

On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that  

the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not  

commit any error by not following the rule of 1/3rd  

deduction towards the personal expenses of the  

deceased.

We are also of the view that the High Court was  

justified in determining the amount of compensation by  

granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased.  

In the normal course, the deceased would have served  

for 22 years and during that period his salary would  

have certainly doubled because the employer was paying  

20% of his salary as bonus per year.

The issue which remains to be considered is  

whether the Tribunal and the High Court committed an  

error by applying the multiplier of 10.

In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation  

(supra), this Court considered the question relating to

Page 19

19 selection of multiplier, referred to the judgments in  

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma  

Thomas (supra), U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (supra) and  

the Second Schedule appended to the Act and held :

“We therefore hold that the multiplier  to be used should be as mentioned in  Column (4) of the table above  (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,  Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which  starts with an operative multiplier of  18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and  21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit  for every five years, that is M-17 for  26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35  years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14  for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to  50 years, then reduced by two units  for every five years, that is, M-11  for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60  years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5  for 66 to 70 years.”

It is not in dispute that at the time of  

accident, the age of the deceased was 36 years.  

Therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court were not  

right in applying the multiplier of 10. They should  

have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of  

determining the amount of compensation.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However,  

with a view to do complete justice to the claimants,  

we suo motu re-determine the amount of compensation in  

the following terms by applying the multiplier of 15  

and hold that the claimants are entitled to a total

Page 20

20 amount of Rs.10,63,040/-:  

Amount of compensation with 12 months  salary and 15 as multiplier :  Rs. 5378 x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,68,040

  [Rs.2,689 pm x 2= Rs. 5,378/- pm]

Compensation to Family members  for loss of love & affection, deprivation of  protection, social security, etc. :  Rs.70,000/-

Compensation to the widow of  the deceased for loss of love & affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of  protection, social security, etc. :  Rs.25,000/-

Total Compensation :  Rs.10,63,040  [Rs.9,68,040 + Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 25,000]  

The claimants shall also get interest on the  

enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per annum  

from the date of filing the claim petition.

The appellant is directed to pay the enhanced /  

additional compensation and interest to the claimants  

within a period of six weeks by getting a demand draft  

prepared in the name of respondent No.2, that is, the  

widow of the deceased. The latter shall invest 50% of  

the amount in a fixed deposit of three years term in a  

nationalized bank.

Since the appellant had enjoyed the ex-parte  

interim order passed by this Court for a period of  

five years, it is directed to pay cost of Rs.5 lakhs  

to the claimants.

Page 21

21 The appellant shall submit compliance report in  

the Registry of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur  

Bench. The Registry shall list the matter before an  

appropriate Bench for perusal of the report. If the  

Bench finds that the appellant has failed to comply  

with the directions contained in this order, it shall  

initiate proceedings against the officers of the  

appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and  

also order recovery of the amount as arrears of land  

revenue.

.............................J   [G.S. SINGHVI]

.............................J [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

NEW DELHI JULY 05, 2012.