N. Chellammal vs T.N. STC Ltd.
- SCC(2016) 14 SCC 516
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In determining the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in a motor accident case involving a claimant aged 26 years at the date of accident, a multiplier of 18 is proper and appropriate, whereas a multiplier of 12 would be erroneous for a person of that age.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2826 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19879/2007]
N. CHELLAMMAL ... APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE ... RESPONDENT(S) TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The only issue raised before us in this appeal is with regard to the multiplier
to be applied in respect of the claimant who was 26 years of age on the date of the
accident and had undergone permanent disability of 65% as his leg has been
amputated. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal keeping in view the age of the
claimant, adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation amounting to Rs.
3,66,500/-.
The matter was then taken in appeal to the High Court by the present
respondent. The High Court has applied the multiplier of 12 and reduced the amount
of compensation to Rs.2,49,500/- with interest. This order of the High Court is under
challenge at the instance of the claimant.
-2- As per the records, it has been found that the claimant was 26 years of age on
the date of the accident. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a
multiplier of 18 was the proper and appropriate one and the application of a
multiplier of 12 by the High Court was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore
that of the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.
We direct that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal shall
be paid, after adjusting the payment, if any, already made, within a period of twelve
weeks from today.
..........................J (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
..........................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
NEW DELHI, APRIL 17, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free