Amrit Bhanu Shali Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. .

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3397 OF 2012 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.27751 OF 2011)

AMRIT BHANU SHALI & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Delay condoned

2. Leave granted.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the reduction of

compensation determined by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘the

Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim No.80/2008 and

being aggrieved for not enhancing the amount as was

claimed, the appellants preferred this appeal.

4. The deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali, son of the Ist

and 2nd appellants, was going to Thanod on 20th July,

2008 by Swift Car bearing Registration No.CG04

HA/6905 from Naharpara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. While

he was coming back at about 4.30 p.m. near Thanod,

one Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.CG04

1

Page 2

HA/5372 coming rashly and negligently from Abhanpur

dashed the Maruti Swift Car. Due to that accident,

Ritesh Bhanu Shali and one Sardar Jaspreet died on

the spot and another Shivam received injuries. The

Ist appellantAmrit Bhanu Shali is the father, the

2nd appellantSmt. Sarlaben is the mother and 3rd

appellantMamta Bhanu Shali is the sister of the

deceased. Claiming to be the dependent on the

deceased they filed Motor Accident Claim Case

No.80/2008 before the Tribunal u/S 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for award

of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,50,000/.

5. The nonapplicants, owner of the car, driver and

National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter

referred to as the “Insurance Company”) appeared and

defended their case. On the pleadings of the parties

the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“SL.NO. ISSUE

1. Whether on 20.07.2001 at about 4.30 P.M. near Village Thanod more, the non applicant No.1 had hit the Swift Car by driving rashly and negligently the vehicle Scorpio bearing No.CG 04 HA/5372 under the ownership of non applicant No.2 and insured with the non applicant No.3 due to which Ritesh Bhanushali died after receiving the injuries ?

2

Page 3

2. Whether applicants have the right to get the compensation separately and jointly from the non applicants ? If yes then how much ?

3. Whether at the time of accident the non applicant No.1 was having valid driving license ?

4. Whether the non applicant was driving the vehicle in violation of terms and agreement of policy ?

5. Relief and cost.”

6. In support of the claim petition, the Ist

appellantAmirt Bhanu Shali examined himself (AW1)

and one Shivam Mahobe (AW2), who was also

travelling in the same Maruti Swift Car. The

appellants have produced Exhibits P1 to P10 series

including a report to the Police Station, Abhanpur.

The Ist AppellantAmirt Bhanu Shali (AW1) in his

statement stated that at the time of accident his

sonRitesh Bhanu Shali was 26 years old, as his date

of birth is 24.08.1982 and he was doing business of

real estate and used to sale handset mobile and also

took tuitions and used to earn Rs. 10,000/ per

month. The deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali also used to

file Income Tax Returns. The Income Tax Returns

filed by his sonRitesh was produced in the Court as

Exhibit P10 and the photocopies of which is

3

Page 4

Exhibit.P10C. No separate document was placed

pertaining to the sale and purchase of land. The Ist

AppellantAmrit Bhanu Shali (AW1) stated that both

the appellants father and the mother were not

earning and 3rd appellant was unmarried at the time

of accident and was dependent on the deceased. It is

stated that Mamta Bhanu Shali has also got married.

7. The nonapplicant No.1Mukesh Agrawal stated

that he is the owner of the Scorpio Car bearing

Registration No. CG04HA/5372 and at the time of

accident the licence holder driver was Bakar Khan.

At the time of accident the original licence was

with the driver. During that accident licence was

not seized. After the accident he took out the

details of the licence of Bakar Khan from Regional

Transport Officer, Raipur. He denied that Bakar Khan

does not know driving. He further stated that he

has presented the original policy of the vehicle

before the Insurance Company. At the time of

accident the surveyor of the Insurance Company came

for examination and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ was paid

by the Insurance Company towards damage.

4

Page 5

8. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral evidence

and analysis of documentary evidence set the Issue

No.1 in the affirmative and held that the accident

was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the

driver of the Scorpio Car.

9. While dealing with issue No. 2, the Tribunal

adverted to the statement made by the appellant No.1

in his cross examination and held that the appellant

No.3 Mamta Bhanu Shali cannot be treated as

dependant upon the deceased because she was aged

about 29 years and was married by that time. The

rest of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, the parents,

were accepted as dependents. The Tribunal taking

into consideration the fact that the deceased was

unmarried and 26 years old young man at the time of

accident and his salary was Rs.99,000/ per annum,

deducted 50% of the income and applying the

multiplier of 17 as per the decision of this Court

in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation”

(2009) 6 SCC 121 held that the appellants are

entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,66,000/. Rest

5

Page 6

of the issues were decided in favour of the

appellants.

10. The appellants challenged the award of the

Tribunal by filing Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 765

of 2010 before the Chhattisgarh High Court for

enhancement of compensation. The National Insurance

Company also challenged the same award by filing

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515 of 2010 before the

Chhattisgarh High Court. Therefore, the appellants

withdrew their Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 765 of

2010 on 2.8.2010 with a liberty to file cross

objection for enhancement of compensation in

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515 of 2010. The

permission was so granted. The appellants filed

cross objection in Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 515

of 2010 for enhancement of compensation.

11. The High Court by impugned order dated

12.11.2010 reduced the compensation to Rs.6,68,000/

by applying the multiplier of 13 and observed as

follows:

6

Page 7

“The impugned award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified as we feel that looking to the age of the deceased as 26 years, the multiplier of 13 was to be applied according to the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, but the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17. Therefore, without changing the annual income and other amounts as awarded by the Tribunal on other heads, in our opinion, the multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in the instant case. Thus the compensation towards dependency would come to Rs.6,43,500/ (Rs.49,500 X 13 =6,43,500/). Besides this amount, the claimants (father & mother of deceased) are entitled to get Rs.10,000/ (each) (i.e. Rs.20,000/) on account of loss of love & affection, Rs. 2,000/ on account of funeral expenses and Rs.2500/ on account of loss of estate as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Total amount comes to Rs.6,68,000/ (Rs.6,43,500/+20,000/+2,000/ +2500/=Rs.6,68,000/). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get the said amount of compensation instad of the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.”

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the

appellants submitted that 50% deduction towards

‘personal and living expenses’ of the deceased is

totally disproportionate to the size of the his

family and as the family of the deceased bachelor

was large and there are three dependentnonearning

7

Page 8

members, the ‘personal and living expenses’ ought

to have been restricted to onethird and

contribution to the family should have been taken as

twothird. He further submitted that the High Court

committed serious error by applying multiplier of 13

which was against the law laid down by this Court in

the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondentsInsurance Company submitted that the

deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali was unmarried boy aged

about 26 years and the High Court rightly applied

the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the

claimants, i.e. parents. According to the

respondents, the multiplier is to be applied as per

the age of the deceased or as per the age of the

claimant, whichever is higher but aforesaid

submission cannot be accepted in view of the finding

of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

14. We have considered the respective arguments and

perused the record. The questions which arise for

consideration are :

(i) What should be the deduction for the ‘personal and living expenses of

8

Page 9

the deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali to decide the question of the contribution of the dependent members of the family; and

(ii) What is the proper selection of multiplier for deciding the claim.

15. The question relating to deduction for ‘personal

and living expenses’ and selection of multiplier

fell for consideration before this Court in the case

of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC

121. In the said case this Court taking into

consideration the decisions in Kerala SRTC v.

Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P. SRTC v.

Trilok Chand, (1996)4 SCC 362; New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and

Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004)

2 SCC 473, held as follows:

“(i)Re Question – Deduction for personal and

living expenses:

30. 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 married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be

9

Page 10

onethird (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 onefifth (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 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 dependent 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 nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird.”

(ii)Re Question Selection of multiplier

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

1

Page 11

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 M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M 15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 for 66 to 70 years.”

16. Admittedly both the parents, Ist appellant

Amrit Bhanu Shali (father) and 2nd appellant Smt.

Sarlaben (mother) have been held to be dependents of

deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali and, therefore, the

Tribunal held that the Ist appellant and 2nd

appellant have the right to get the compensation. On

the date of the accident the 3rd appellant Mamta

was not married but by the time the case was heard by

the Tribunal the 3rd appellantMamta had already been

married. In these circumstances, she is not found to

be dependent upon the deceased. Thus, both the

parents being dependents, i.e., father and the

mother, the Tribunal rightly restricted the ‘personal

and living expenses’ of the deceased to 50% and

contribution to the family was required to be taken

as 50% as per the decision of this Court in the case

of Sarla Verma (supra).

1

Page 12

17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age

of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of

dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the

deceased whose age may be different and, therefore,

the age of dependents has no nexus with the

computation of compensation.

18. In the case of Sarla Verma (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 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to

have been applied. The Tribunal taking into

consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied

the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a

serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier

of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.

19. The appellants produced Income Tax Returns of

deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali for the years 2002 to

2008 which have been marked as Ext.P10C. The

Income Tax Return for the year 20072008 filed on

12.03.2008 at Raipur, four months prior to the

accident, shows the income of Rs.99,000/ per annum.

1

Page 13

The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the

aforesaid income of Rs.99,000/ for computing the

compensation. If the 50% of the income of Rs.99,000/

is deducted towards ‘personal and living expenses’ of

the deceased the contribution to the family will be

50%, i.e., Rs.49,500/ per annum. At the time of

the accident, the deceasedRitesh Bhanu Shali was

26 years old, hence on the basis of decision in

Sarla Verma (supra) applying the multiplier of 17,

the amount will come to Rs.49,500/ x 17

=Rs.8,41,500/. Besides this amount the claimants

are entitled to get Rs.50,000/ each towards the

affection of the son, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/ and

Rs.10,000/ on account of funeral and ritual expenses

and Rs.2,500/ on account of loss of sight as awarded

by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total amount comes to

Rs.9,54,000/ (Rs.8,41,500/ + Rs.1,00,000/ +

Rs.10,000/ + Rs.2,500/) 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 leaving rest of the

1

Page 14

conditions mentioned in the award intact.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 12.11.2010 passed by the High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Appeal No.(C)

No.515 of 2010 is set aside and the award passed by

the Tribunal is modified to the extent above. The

amount which has already been received by the

claimantsappellants shall be adjusted and rest of

the amount be paid at an early date. No order as to

costs.

……………………………………………….J. ( G.S. SINGHVI )

……………………………………………….J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 04, 2012

1