IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8196 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2798 of 2009)

Arshada Banu                     ...Appellant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.        ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First  

Appeal No.6268 of 2003.   

Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this  

appeal is recapitulated as under:

The appellant filed a claim petition in Motor Vehicle  

Case  No.49  of  2000  against  the  respondents  seeking  

compensation of Rupees ten lakhs for personal injuries said  

to have been sustained by her in motor vehicle accident that  

occurred at about 2.45 p.m. on 20th September, 1999, near  

Hampapura gate, Nagamangala raod, Mandya.  According to the  

appellant,  the  accident  took  place  because  of  rash  and  

negligent  driving  of  the  driver.   As  a  result  of  the  

accident, there was amputation of her right hand above the  

elbow joint.  The appellant remained in hospital for fifteen  

days  and  she  had  to  spend  huge  amount  towards  medical  

expenses, transportation, attendant charges, nourishing food  

etc.   It  is  further stated that she is a tailor, stitching

....2/-

- 2 -

ladies  garments  and  earning  about  Rs.150/-  per  day.  

According to the order of the High Court, the appellant is  

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- as against  

Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.  The High Court also  

awarded interest at the rate of eight per cent from the date  

of petition, till the date of realisation.  The appellant,  

aggrieved  by  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  

preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

According to the appellant, the High Court has not  

properly computed the compensation amount.  According to her,  

she was about 35 years of age at the time of accident and  

was earning Rs.3,000/- per month.   

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused the documents on record.  Looking to the fact that  

the  appellant  was  working  in  a  very  small  village  and  

according to the evidence on record and other factors, we  

take that her annual income was Rs.18,000/- from tailoring.  

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the  

proper multiplier should be sixteen.  The High Court had  

granted Rs.84,000/- under the heading `Loss of Service to the  

Family'  vide para 17 of the impugned order.  Therefore, in  

place  of  Rs.84,000/-,  Rs.2,88,000/-  has  to  be  substituted  

under the heading `Loss of earning capacity'. The award under  

other  different  headings  except  the  amount  calculated  

regarding the income of the appellant would remains the same.

With this modification, the appeal is disposed of.

The parties to bear their own costs.

......................J.               [DALVEER BHANDARI]

......................J.               [A.K. PATNAIK]

New Delhi, December 10, 2009.