IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6480               OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 951 of 2010)

Urmila and others … Appellants  

Versus

Rashpal Kaur and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling  dissatisfied  with  the  enhancement  granted  by  the  Division  

Bench  of  the  Chhattisgarh  High  Court  in  the  amount  of  compensation  

awarded by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur  

(for short, “the Tribunal”), the appellants have filed this appeal.

3. Shri  Shivlal  Verma (husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant  

Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Shri Swaminath and Smt. Tulsi Devi) died in an

accident,  which  occurred  on  23.4.1999  when  he  was  hit  by  the  truck  

belonging  to  respondent  No.1.   The  appellants  and  the  parents  of  the  

deceased (both of  them died during the  pendency of  the  case before the  

Tribunal) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  

(for  short,  `the  Act’)  for  award  of  compensation  of  Rs.28,45,000/-  by  

asserting that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of  

the truck by its driver-Shri Ashok Kumar Dass (respondent No.2).  They  

claimed that at the time of death, Shri Shivlal Verma was 28 years old and  

was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum by doing agriculture.

4. Respondent No.1 contested the claim by asserting that the accident  

was caused due to negligence and carelessness of the deceased.  She also  

pleaded  that  the  claim  made  by  the  appellants  and  the  parents  of  the  

deceased was highly exaggerated.   

5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced  

by them, the Tribunal held that the accident  was caused due to rash and  

negligent  driving  of  the  truck  by  respondent  No.2.   The  Tribunal  then  

considered the issue relating to quantum of compensation, referred to the  

statements of appellant No.1-Smt. Urmila (P.W.1) and Swaminath Verma  

2

(P.W.3), both of whom deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/-  

per  annum from agriculture,  but  assessed  his  income  at  Rs.50,000/-  per  

annum.  The Tribunal  noted that  family of the deceased consisted of six  

members and in terms of the judgment of this Court in  U.P. State Road  

Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the total  

number  of  units  would  be  9.   The  Tribunal  then  proceeded  to  make  a  

deduction of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.911/- for 2 units of the deceased and Rs.589/-  

towards  his  personal  expenses)  and  concluded  that  dependency  of  the  

claimants would be Rs.2,600/- per month. Finally, the Tribunal applied the  

multiplier of 8 and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of  

Rs.2,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with a stipulation  

that if the amount is not paid within two months, then they would be entitled  

to receive interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

6. The  appellants  challenged  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  by  filing  an  

appeal under Section 173 of the Act.  They pleaded that the Tribunal had  

committed an error by applying the multiplier of 8 and that keeping in view  

the age of the deceased the multiplier of 17 should have been applied.  

3

7. The Division Bench of the High Court did not accept the plea of the  

appellants but applied the multiplier of 13 and held that the appellants are  

entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,20,600/-.  The reasons assigned by the  

High  Court  for  doing  so  are  contained  in  paragraph  7  of  the  impugned  

judgment, which is extracted below:

“So far as the multiplier is concerned, admittedly the deceased  was aged about 28 years and, in our opinion, the Tribunal erred  in selecting the multiplier of 8.  The Tribunal has selected the  multiplier of 8 on the basis of age of the father of the deceased,  60 years.  The Tribunal completely lost sight of the fact that the  Claim  Petition  was  also  filed  by  the  widow  and  2  minor  children of the deceased who were aged about 25 years, 2 years  and 15 days, respectively, on the date of the accident.  In the  facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have  applied a higher multiplier than 8.  Looking to the age of the  deceased,  his  widow  and  minor  children,  we  deem  it  appropriate to apply the multiplier of 13 in place of 8 applied  by the Claims Tribunal.”

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

In  Sarla Verma v.  Delhi  Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, a  

two-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  considered  various  issues  relevant  for  

determination of compensation payable in motor accident cases, noticed the  

judgments in  G.M.,  Kerala SRTC v.  Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC  

176, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (supra),  

T.N. State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya (2005) 6 SCC  

236, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Charlie (2005) 10 SCC  

4

720,  Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5  

SCC 428 and held:

“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.”

9. Admittedly, at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 28  

years.  Therefore, in terms of the ratio of the judgment in  Sarla Verma’s  

case, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants is required to be  

determined by applying the multiplier of 17.  By doing so, the appellants  

would become entitle to get compensation of Rs.5,30,400/-.  If Rs.15,000/-  

is added to this amount under other permissible heads, as was done by the  

High  Court,  the  total  amount  payable  to  the  appellants  would  be  

Rs.5,45,400/-.   

10. The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed,  the  impugned  judgment  is  

modified  and  it  is  declared  that  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  total  

compensation of Rs.5,45,400/-.  Respondent No.1 shall, within a period of  

5

three months from the receipt/production of copy of this judgment to pay to  

the appellants the total amount of compensation, after deducting the amount  

already paid in terms of the award of the Tribunal and the judgment of the  

High Court.  Within that period, respondent No.1 shall also pay interest to  

the  appellants  at  the  rate  of  6% per  annum on  the  enhanced  amount  of  

Rs.1,24,800/- from the date of filing the claim petition.  The balance amount  

shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date  

of receipt/production of certified copy of this judgment.

………………………………….. J. [G.S. Singhvi]

………………………………….. J. [H.L. Dattu]

New Delhi August 09, 2011.        

6