Page 1

REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2009

ANJANI SINGH & ORS. … APPELLANTS           VS.

SALAUDDIN & ORS.    … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This  civil  appeal  is  directed  against  the  

judgment and award dated 29th November, 2006 passed by  

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in  

FAO No.236 of 2001, wherein the High Court allowed  

the  said  appeal  and  enhanced  the  compensation  by  

1,20,600/- and awarded interest at the rate of 6%  

per annum. The same is questioned by the appellants-

claimants,  on  the  ground  that  just  and  reasonable

Page 2

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

compensation  was  not  awarded  keeping  in  view  the  

future  prospects  of  income  and  further,  correct  

multiplier  method  was  not  applied  taking  into  

consideration the age of the deceased at the time of  

death.  Lastly,  compensation  under  the  conventional  

heads towards loss of love and affection towards the  

widow, children and parents of the deceased was also  

not  awarded.  Hence,  this  appeal  was  filed  by  the  

appellants  seeking  further  enhancement  of  

compensation.

2. The facts in brief are stated hereunder:

On 17.09.1997 Sergeant Dalbir Singh, husband of  

appellant No. 1, father of appellant nos. 2 to 4 and  

son of appellant no. 5 died in a road accident. The  

accident took place at 10.15 p.m. on National Highway  

No.  28  between  Air  Force  Station,  Gorakhpur  and  

Nandanagar  Police  Station,  when  the  deceased  was  

going on his bicycle and was hit by truck No. UP-

41A/1901 coming from Gorakhpur side. The said truck  

was driven by Respondent No.1, owned by Respondent  

2

Page 3

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

No.2  and  insured  by  Respondent  No.3,  United  India  

Insurance Company.

On 24.11.1997, the appellant/claimants filed the  

Claim  Petition  No.217  of  1997  before  the  Motor  

Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (in short “the  

Tribunal”)  and  claimed  for  15,00,000/-  as  

compensation for loss to estate of the deceased. The  

Tribunal  held  that,  the  deceased  Sergeant  Dalbir  

Singh died because of the accident which took place  

due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1  

and  awarded  the  appellants  2,49,600/-  as  

compensation. The Tribunal determined the dependency  

of appellants as  31,000/- per annum and applied the  

multiplier of 8 since the deceased suffered death at  

the age of 35 and the age of superannuation in the  

Air Force is 45-50 years.  

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the  

Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed First Appeal  

No. 234 of 2011 before the High Court of Punjab and  

3

Page 4

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

Haryana at Chandigarh on 12.7.2000. The High Court  

allowed  the  appeal  and  held  that  assessment  of  

monthly income by the Tribunal as  4030/- is correct  

based on the examination of the salary certificate.  

The finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of  

1/3rd amount towards personal expenses was held to be  

erroneous. Hence, this finding was set aside and only  

1/4th of  the  compensation  was  deducted  towards  

personal expenses. The total dependency amount came  

up to  3,62,700/- by applying a multiplier of 10 and  

2,500/-  was  awarded  towards  funeral  expenses  and  

5,000 towards loss of consortium for the widow of  

the deceased. In total, a compensation of 3,70,200/-  

was awarded. Thus, the compensation was enhanced by  

1,20,600/-,  which  carried  an  interest  of  6%  per  

annum from the date of filing of the claim till the  

date of payment.

4. This Court, vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2009,  

granted leave, and referred the issue to a larger  

bench. This was in view of the divergence of opinion  

4

Page 5

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

across judgments of this Court, and this aspect of  

the matter having not been considered in the earlier  

decisions,  particularly  in  the  absence  of  any  

clarification from Parliament despite recommendations  

made  by  this  Court  in  U.P.  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.1, it was  

further directed to the Registry to place the matter  

before  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  of  India  for  an  

appropriate  order  to  constitute  a  larger  Bench  to  

answer the points referred to it. Pursuant to the  

said order, the matter was placed before a larger  

Bench  which  answered  the  points  of  reference  in  

favour of the appellants, in the decision reported in  

Reshma  Kumari  &  Ors.  v. Madan  Mohan  &  Anr.2 The  

points answered read as under:

“40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up  our conclusions as follows:  

(i) In the applications for compensation made un- der Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases  where the age of the deceased is 15 years and  above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the mul- tiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table  

1 (1996) 4 SCC 362 2 (2013) 9 SCC 65

5

Page 6

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that  judgment.  

(ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is  upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or  Section 163A under which the claim for compensa- tion has been made, multiplier of 15 and the as- sessment as indicated in the Second Schedule sub- ject to correction as pointed out in Column (6)  of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.  

(iii) As a result of the above, while considering  the claim applications made under Section 166 in  death  cases  where  the  age  of  the  deceased  is  above 15 years, there is no necessity for the  Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing  reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act.  

(iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps  and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma  for  determination  of  compensation  in  cases  of  death.  

(v) While making addition to income for future  prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph  24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.

(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living  expenses is concerned, it is directed that the  Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards  prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the  judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observa- tions made by us in para 38 above.  

(vii)  The  above  propositions  mutatis  mutandis  shall apply to all pending matters where above  aspects are under consideration.”

In view of the above decision of the larger Bench of  

this  Court,  the  appellants  were  held  entitled  to  

6

Page 7

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

future prospects of income considered at the time of  

determination of compensation both by the Tribunal  

and High Court.  The monthly salary of the deceased  

was taken as 4030/- by the Tribunal. The High Court,  

in view of the answer to the points raised by this  

Court and keeping in view the age of the deceased  

which  was  35  years,  has  taken  50%  of  the  monthly  

salary  to  arrive  at  the  multiplicand.  Therefore,  

towards  future  prospects  at  the  rate  of  50%  with  

monthly income of  4030/- it would come to  2015/-,  

making the total monthly income to  6045/-. Out of  

6045/-,  one fourth  i.e.  1511/-  shall be  deducted  

towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the  

decision of this Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi  

Transport Corporation & Anr.3 case, as the deceased  

has five dependents, thus the resultant figure would  

be  4534/- per month  which after multiplying by 12  

would  come  to   54,408/-  as  annual  income.  The  

multiplier would be 16 as per the above case which  

would come to  8,70,528/- under the head of loss of  3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

7

Page 8

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

dependency.  We  further  award  towards  funeral  

expenses, a sum of  25,000/-, towards loss of love  

and affection of the children and the parents, a sum  

of  1,00,000/-  and  further,  a  sum  of  

1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium by the widow  

of the deceased, as per the legal principle laid down  

by this Court in the three judge bench decision in  

Rajesh  & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.4 We also award  

a sum of 25,000/- for the cost of litigation as per  

the  principle  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Balram  

Prasad  v. Kunal Saha & Ors.5 Therefore, the amount  

would come to 11,20,528/-. Further, the Tribunal has  

passed the award in the year 2000 and the appellants  

have received 3,25,298/- on 22.7.2000 and 1,80,221/-  

on 9.3.2007. In total they have received 5,05,519/-.  

Now, they are entitled to the remaining amount, i.e.  

6,15,009/-. This amount shall bear interest at the  

rate of 9% per annum following the decision of this  

Court  in  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi,  Delhi  v.  

4 (2013) 9 SCC 54 5 (2014) 1 SCC 384

8

Page 9

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.6 from the  

date of application till the date of payment. Out of  

this  amount,  50%  shall  be  deposited  in  any  

nationalized  bank  of  Appellants’  choice  and  the  

remaining amount to be paid to them through demand  

draft within six weeks from the date of receipt of a  

copy  of  this  judgment.  The  appeal  is  accordingly  

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.        

 ……………………………………………………………J.                            [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

                     ……………………………………………………………J.                   [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, April 25, 2014  

6 (2011) 14 SCC 481

9

Page 10

C.A. No.4647 of 2009

ITEM NO.1E               COURT NO.13             SECTION IV FOR JUDGMENT

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                   CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4647 OF 2009

ANJANI SINGH & ORS.                           Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

SALAUDDIN & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

Date: 25/04/2014  This Appeal was called on for judgment  today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.  

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.  Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the judgment  of the  Bench comprising  Hon'ble  Mrs.  Justice  Gyan  Sudha  Misra  and  His  Lordship.

Civil Appeal is allowed  in terms of signed  reportable judgment with no order as to costs.

(Pardeep Kumar)  AR-cum-PS

(Renu Diwan)  Court Master

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

1