Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.     5399-5400     OF     2012   

Rebeka Minz & Ors. ….Appellants

VERSUS

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.      …Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These appeals at the instance of the claimants before the  

Motor Accidents claims Tribunals challenge the common order of  

the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack dated 05.03.2009 passed in  

MACA No.821 of 2007 and MACA No.953 of 2007.  MACA No. 821 of  

2007 was preferred by the appellants while MACA No.953 of 2007  

was preferred by the first respondent-Insurance company in the  

High Court.  The husband of the first appellant died in an accident  

1

Page 2

on 04.01.1995 when he was returning from the plant site on a  

scooter bearing registration No. OR-06-7703 around 6.30 a.m. near  

NALCO Nagar on NH-42 at a place called Smelter Chhak, due to  

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing  

registration No. ORA-4241.   

2. The appellants being the wife and children of the deceased  

preferred the claim before the Motor Accidents Tribunal in MAC  

case No.21 of 1995.  The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire  

evidence placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,08,000/- as  

compensation along with interest at the rate of  7% per annum with  

effect from 03.02.1995 to 22.08.1995 and again from 16.01.2007 till  

the payment within one month.  While the appellants were  

aggrieved insofar as the Tribunal applied the multiplier 12 instead  

of 17, having regard to the fact that the deceased at the time of his  

death was 35 years old as well as non-grant of interest for certain  

period, the first respondent was aggrieved of the very award of  

compensation itself.  The High Court while disposing of the appeal  

reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also the  

rate of interest by holding as under:-

“Considering the submissions of the learned  counsel for the parties and keeping in view findings of  the learned Tribunal with regard to the quantum of  compensation amount awarded and the basis on which  

2

Page 3

the same has been arrived at, I feel, the interest of  justice would be best served if the awarded  compensation amount of Rs.10,08,000/- is modified and  reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- which is payable to the  claimants.  The claimants are also entitled to interest @  6% per annum from the date of the claim application,  till deposit of the amount.  The impugned award is  modified to the said extent.

The appellant insurance company (in MACA  No.953 of 2007) is directed to deposit the modified  compensation amount of Rs, 5,00,000/- along with  interest @6% per annum from the date of filling of claim  application with the learned Tribunal within six weeks  from today.  On deposit of the amount, the same shall  be disbursed to the claimants proportionately as per the  direction of the learned tribunal given in the impugned  award.”

3. At the very outset, it is needless to state that the High Court  

while reducing the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of  

interest failed to assign any reason.  The impugned order of the  

High Court being a non-speaking order calls for interference in  

these appeals.

4. As stated by us, the appellants, namely, the claimants alone  

have come forward with these appeals.  Therefore, the only question  

to be examined is as to what is the multiplier to be applied, which  

ground was though raised before the High Court, we find that the  

High Court has not ventured to answer the said question.  This  

question has time and again been considered by this Court.  In a  

3

Page 4

recent decision of this Court, namely, Santosh Devi v. National  

Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. –  2012 (6) SCC 421-to which  

one of us (Hon. G.S. Singhvi. J.) was a party, after referring to the  

decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation  

& Anr. –  2009 (6) SCC 121 wherein the formula under different  

headings including the one relating to selection of multiplier was  

quoted with approval. The said formula has been set out in Sarla  

Verma (supra) in para 42 which reads as under:-

“42. 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.”

5. The said part of the formula was applied in the said reported  

decision Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &  

Ors.(supra) referred to above while working out the compensation  

payable to the claimants therein.  We, therefore, follow the above  

referred to decisions and when the said formula is applied since the  

deceased was stated to be 35 years old at the time of his death, the  

multiplier would be 16 which has to be applied for calculating the  

4

Page 5

compensation.   The Tribunal after examining the materials before  

it, found that after deducting 1/3rd of personal expenses, the  

monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- and the net  

contribution to the family was ascertained at Rs. 84,000/- per  

annum.  Applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out  

to Rs. 13,44,000/-.  Therefore, while setting aside the order of the  

High Court insofar as it reduced the quantum of compensation, we  

modify the compensation payable to the appellants in a sum of Rs.  

13,44,000/- [84,000/- x 16].  The said sum of Rs. 13,44,000/-

should carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of  

application till the date of realization.   

6. The first respondent is, therefore, directed to pay to the  

appellants the total amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.  

13,44,000/- after giving credit to whatever payment already made  

by calculating the rate of interest from the date of application till  

realization.  Such payment should be made in the proportion as set  

out by the Tribunal in the last para of its order dated 10.07.2007.  

With the above modification in the quantum of compensation and  

the rate of interest payable right from the date of application, the  

compensation shall be made within a period of three months from  

the date of this order.  The appeals stand allowed as above.

5

Page 6

…..……….…………………………...J.                            [G.S. Singhvi]

 ……………………………………………J.

           [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; August 23, 2012

6