Santosh Devi vs Mahaveer Singh .

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7279 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17164 of 2016)

SANTOSH DEVI AND ORS ..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

MAHAVEER SINGH AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1 The present appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a first appeal against an award of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar.

2 The appellants are the wife and children of Puran Chand, who met with a road

accident on 30 December 1992. A government Jeep, bearing Registration No. HYH-

100 dashed into his moped, bearing Registration No. HR-20-A-7236. Puran Chand

sustained grievous injuries and died.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2018.08.09 11:20:15 IST Reason: 2

3 The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 before the MACT, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The MACT found

that the Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by the first Respondent on the

wrong side of the road. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of his death and

was in the business of selling desi ghee and namkin bhujia. The appellants claimed

that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500. The MACT, however, held

that the deceased was working in a small village; his shop bore no name; he was not

paying tax, hence his income was assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month. Accordingly, the

appellants were awarded an amount of Rs. 1,15,200 after applying a multiplier of 12,

along with interest at 15 per cent per annum.

4 In appeal, the High Court applied a multiplier of 15 and increased the

compensation to Rs. 1,85,000. However, interest was reduced to 8 per cent per

annum.

5 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the

judgment of the High Court on the following grounds:

i. The High Court ought to have applied a multiplier of 16 since the deceased

was 38 years of age;

ii. The High Court should not have made a deduction of more than 10% for

personal expenses;

iii. The High Court and the MACT erred in determining the income of the

deceased at Rs. 1,200 per month whereas the deceased was earning 3

Rs. 3,500 per month out of which, an amount of Rs. 3,000 was being spent

for household expenditure;

iv. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 16,34,600 should have been awarded to the

appellants.

6 Having considered the record, we are of the view that the assessment of

income by the MACT at Rs 1,200 per month is on the lower side. Taking a

realistic view, the income should have been assessed at Rs 2,500 per month

having due regard to the nature of the business, the date of accident and all the

circumstances of the case. The deceased was 38 years old and hence the

correct multiplier would be 16. Following the decision of the Constitution Bench

in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1, an amount of 40

per cent is required to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the

quantum of compensation is recomputed as follows:

• Monthly income : Rs 2,500

• Annual income : Rs 30,000

• Deduction of one-third for personal expenses : Rs 10,000

• Net annual income : Rs 20,000

• Future prospects at 40% : Rs 8,000

• Total income : Rs 28,000

• Multiplier : 16

1 2017)16 SCC 680 4

• Total compensation for loss of dependency : Rs 4,48,000

• Addition for conventional heads in terms of Pranay Sethi: Rs 75,000

• Total compensation : Rs 5,23,000

7 The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per

annum from the date of the petition until payment.

8 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to

costs.

...........................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA]

...........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR]

...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]

New Delhi;

August 09, 2018