NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4948 OF 2011  (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15480 of 2010)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant.

        Versus

Vithabai & Ors. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Though served,   none appeared for the respondents.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant - Insurance Company  has challenged the validity  

of the  Judgment dated 1st July, 2009 delivered by the  Karnataka High  

Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in MFA No. 30178 of 2009.

1

4. By virtue of the impugned judgment,  the respondents-claimants,  

who had filed  MVC No.   359 of  2006  before  the  Motor Accident  

Claims  Tribunal,  Bidar  have  been  awarded  higher  amount  of  

compensation.  Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation,  

the insurance company has filed the appeal.

5. The  Tribunal  was  pleased  to   award  Rs.  1,76,000/-  by  way  of  

compensation with interest thereon @ 6% to the claimants - the widow  

and  children  of  Vithal  who  had  died  in  a  motor  accident.    After  

considering the evidence adduced before the  Tribunal,  the Tribunal  

had  come  to  a  conclusion  that  average  income  of  the  deceased  was  

Rs. 5,000/- per month.  On the basis of the said  income and looking to  

the  relevant factors,   including age of  the deceased  which was  56  

years,  the Tribunal had considered multiplier of ‘8’ for determining the  

amount of  compensation.   The Tribunal had also considered the fact  

that the deceased was riding  his cycle in the centre of the road and,  

therefore, he was also held to be negligent to the extent of  50%.

6. An appeal was filed before the High Court by the claimants and  

after hearing the  concerned  advocates and looking to the facts of the  

2

case,   the  High  Court  enhanced  the  amount  of  compensation  to  

Rs. 4,86,000/-.    The High Court enhanced the compensation because it  

found  that   there  was  no  evidence  with  regard  to  contributory  

negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the amount of compensation  

should not have been reduced.  Moreover, the High Court increased the  

multiplier from ‘8’ to ‘11’, as the age of the deceased was 56 years, by  

relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of  Gulam Khader  vs.  

United India Insurance Ltd. reported in  2001 (1) KLJ 340 .  

7. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-insurance  

company vehemently submitted that the High Court was in error while  

increasing the multiplier to ‘11’ from ‘8’.   She submitted that the  High  

Court  did  not  consider  the  law  laid  down  in  the  case  of  Sarla  

Verma(Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another  

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the multiplier  used in the Second  

Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act.  She also submitted that in view of  

the judgment delivered  in  the case of Sarla Verma (supra),  the  High  

Court was in error in considering the law laid down by the Karnataka  

High  Court  in  the  case  of  Gulam  Khader (Supra).   She  further  

submitted that looking to the age of the deceased,  the multiplier,  as per  

3

the  aforestated  schedule  should  have  been  ‘8’  and,  therefore,  the  

Tribunal had not committed any error in using ‘8’ as a multiplier.  In  

view of the said fact, the High Court ought not to have increased the  

multiplier to ‘11’.  

8. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel and  

looking to the  law laid down by this Court and in view of the fact that  

the  age  of  the  deceased  was  56  and,  therefore,  taking  notice  of  the  

multiplier indicated in the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act,  we  

are of the  view that  the High Court was not justified in increasing the  

multiplier  from ‘8’  to ‘11’.   In our opinion,   the Tribunal  was right  

while considering ‘8’ as a multiplier.  We do no find any other error in  

the judgment  delivered by the  High Court  and , therefore,  we are of  

the view that  instead of ‘11’,  the multiplier of ‘8’ should be used while  

calculating the amount of compensation.   In  view of the said fact, a  

sum  of  Rs.  1,20,000/-  shall  be  reduced  on  account  of  reduction  in  

multiplier.   While considering ‘11’ as the multiplier,  the High Court  

had  determined  the  amount  of  compensation  towards   loss  of  

dependency as Rs. 4,40,000/- which is hereby reduced to Rs. 3,20,000/-  

as multiplier has been reduced from ‘11’ to ‘8’.

4

9. Except the above modification,  no other interference is required  

in the impugned Judgment.   Accordingly,  the amount of compensation  

shall  be  recalculated  and  paid  to  the  respondents-claimants  with  

interest  as  directed  by  the  Tribunal.   The  direction,  as  regards  the  

depositing of the amount with a nationalized bank, shall continue.  

10. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent but without any  

order as to costs.

………………................................J.                                                                 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

                          ……...........................................J.                                                                        (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi July  5,  2011.  

5