M.MANSOOR Vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-008612-008612 / 2013
Diary number: 28895 / 2010
Advocates: Vs
DEBASIS MISRA
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8612 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31010 of 2010]
M. Mansoor & Anr. .. Appellant(s)
-vs-
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling dissatisfied with the reduction of compensation
determined by the Motor Claims Tribunal, Second Small
Causes Court, Chennai in Motor Accident Claim No.M.A.C.T.O.P.
No.4973 of 2001, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
Page 2
2
-
3. The deceased Amjath Khan Arabu, is the son of the
appellants. The deceased was travelling as passenger in a
Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration no.TN-01-N-6587
to Kumbakkonam from Tambaram on the Grand Southern Trunk
Road, while the bus was proceeding near the village Silavattam, a
container lorry bearing registration no.TN-01-C-6248 coming
rashly and negligently in the opposite direction dashed against
the Corporation Bus, resulting in the instantaneous death of five
persons including the son of the appellants. The parents of the
deceased-Amjath Khan Arabu, filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motors Vehicle Act (for short “the Act”) for awarding of
compensation to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/-. They pleaded that
the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the
container lorry, owned by the Respondent No.1 and that, at the
time of his death the age of the deceased was 24 years and he
was a MBA Graduate and employed as Business Manager in Intel
Comox Management India and was earning Rs.18,100/- per
month.
Page 3
3
4. Respondent No.1 did not appear and was set Ex-parte.
Respondent No.2, insurer of the container lorry, filed a
written -
statement stating that the accident was not caused due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the container lorry and also
denied the claimant’s assertion about the income of their son
Amjath Khan Arabu.
5. Two other claim petitions, arising out of the same accident,
were clubbed with the claim petition of the appellants and the
Tribunal framed the following issues :
“1. As to who is the cause for the accident cited in these petitions?
2. If so, what should be compensation amount which are liable to be received in each of the petitions?”
6. In support of the claim petitions the first appellant examined
himself as PW-1 and four other witnesses were also examined.
PW-2 and PW-4 were travelling in the bus and witnessed the
accident. According to PW-1 the first appellant, their son Amjath
Khan Arabu studied MBA and has been working as the Business
Page 4
4
Manager in the Firm called Intel Comox Management India and his
salary was Rs.18,100/-. Ex.A-1 to A-10 were marked as
documents which included the Post Mortem Certificate, MBA
Degree Certificate, - Appointment Order for the Job done, Salary
Certificate and copy of the Bank Account. No evidence was let in
by Respondent No.2.
7. After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal decided Issue No.1
in the affirmative and held that accident was caused due to rash
and negligent driving of container lorry owned by the first
respondent.
8. While dealing with the Issue No.2, the Tribunal accepted the
evidence produced to show the employment of the deceased as
Business Manager and his earning at Rs.18,100/- in the private
company. It also determined that the deceased was a bachelor
aged about 24 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal
deducted 1/3rd of his monthly salary and determined the loss of
earnings to family at Rs.12,067/-. The Tribunal then applied the
multiplier 17 and declared that the claimants are entitled to get
compensation of Rs.24,65,668/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of claim petition.
Page 5
5
9. Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company challenged the
award of the Tribunal by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.676
of 2005 before the High Court of judicature at Madras.
-
10. The High Court referred to the decisions of this Court
including Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and by the impugned judgment dated
30.4.2010 reduced the compensation to Rs.15,14,648/- by
applying multiplier of 12 and observed as follows :
……….“We determine the Loss of monthly Income/Pecuniary Loss in respect of the deceased at Rs.15,100/- p.m. as an Equitable one and fair sum. From and out of the sum of Rs.15,100/- we deduct one third sum of Rs.5,033/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance works out to Rs.10,067/- and this sum, we aptly take into account as Loss of Income/Pecuniary Loss per month in respect of the death of the deceased son of the Respondents/Claimants. Per year, it comes to Rs.1,20,804/- (Rs.10,067 x 12). Since the First Respondent/First Claimant’s (father) age was 51 and the Second Respondent/Second Claimant’s (mother) aged about 46 at the time of the death of the deceased son, we deem it fit and proper to adopt a just fair and
Page 6
6
reasonable multiplier 12 and accordingly, the Loss of Income works out to Rs.14,49,648/- (Rs.1,20,804 x 12). Towards loss of Love and Affection, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondents/ Claimants. Towards Funeral Expenses, we award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Loss of Estate, we grant a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, we - award a total compensation of Rs.15,14,648/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs fourteen thousand six hundred and forty eight only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of accident till date of payment with pro costs payable by the Appellant/Second Respondent Insurance Company.”..……..
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma case
(supra) referred above and argued that the victim being aged 24
years the multiplier of 18 should have been applied but the High
Court committed a serious error by applying the multiplier of 12,
which was against the law laid down by this Court in the said
decision. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No.1-Insurance Company relying upon the same
decision in Sarla Verma case (supra) contended that deceased
being a bachelor, deduction of 50% towards personal and living
Page 7
7
expenses ought to have been made and the Tribunal as well as
the High Court committed serious error by deducting one-third
(1/3rd) only which was against the law laid down by this Court in
the said decision. He also further contended that the deceased
Amjath Khan Arabu was an unmarried -
person aged about 24 years and the High Court rightly applied
the multiplier of 12 as per the age of the claimants (i.e.) parents.
12. We have considered the respective arguments and perused
the record. The questions which arise for consideration are :
“1. What should be the deduction for the “personal and living expenses”
of the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu to decide the question of the
contribution to the parents?
2. What is the proper selection of Multiplier for deciding the claim?”
13. The question relating to deduction for personal and living
expenses and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before
this Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
(Supra) cited above and this Court referred to large number of
precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok
Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Nance vs. British Columbia
Page 8
8
Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC), Davies vs.
Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2 (1942) 1 All
ER 657 (HL) and made an attempt to limit the exercise of
discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of
award of compensation by laying down -
straitjacket formula under different headings in its judgment some
of which are enumerated below :
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardized 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 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.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
Page 9
9
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 dependant 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 non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
Page 10
10
14. Admittedly, both the parents namely the appellants herein
have been held to be dependants to the deceased Amjath Khan
Arabu and therefore, the Tribunal held that they have the right to
get the compensation. The Tribunal as well as the High Court
made a deduction of 1/3rd only towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased and as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, the deceased being a
bachelor and the -
claimants being parents, the deduction of 50% has to be made as
personal and living expenses as per the decision of this Court in
Sarla Verma case (supra) extracted above. The first question is
determined accordingly.
15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court
determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the
parents/claimants. This Court in the decision in Amrit Bhanu
Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited &
Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 held as follows :
“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age
Page 11
11
may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.”
16. In the decision in Sarla Verma case (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 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have
been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of
the deceased wrongly -
applied the multiplier of 17 and the High Court committed a
serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12.
17. Appellants produced the Salary Certificate of deceased
Amjath Khan Arabu, which has been marked as Ex.P-8. It shows
that the deceased was earning Rs.18,100/- per month. The
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid income
for computing the compensation. The annual income comes to
Rs.2,17,200/-. If 50% of the said income is deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased the contribution to
the family will be Rs.1,08,600/-. At the time of the accident the
deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was a bachelor about 24 years old
Page 12
12
hence on the basis of the decision in Sarla Verma case (supra)
applying the multiplier of 18, the amount will come to
Rs.19,54,800/-. Besides this amount the claimants are entitled to
get Rs.50,000/- each towards the loss of affection of the son i.e.
Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual
expenses. Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.20,64,800/-
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 till realization.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
dated 30-4-2010 passed by the High Court of Madras in Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.676 of 2005 is set aside and the award
passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent above. The
amount which has already been received by appellants/claimants
shall be adjusted and rest of the amount be paid at an early
date.No order as to costs.
…………………………….J. (G.S. Singhvi)
Page 13
13
……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)
New Delhi; October 03, 2013.