1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4956               2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4130 of 2007]

Budhwanti @ Budho Rani … Appellant

VERSUS

Nidhan Singh @ Kapoor & Ors.       … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4958                 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4315 of 2007]

Sheela Rani & Ors. … Appellants

VERSUS

Nidhan Singh @ Kapoor & Ors.       … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Khairati Lal (deceased) and the appellants herein were residents of  

a village known as Khamano Mandi.  On or about 11.03.1998, at 8 a.m.,  

they were proceeding to another village on a scooter.  Kanwar Ram and  

Ramesh Kumar were following them on another scooter.  One Trala (a

2

goods carrier) struck the scooter of Khairati Lal near a village known as  

Pahar Kalan.  The said vehicle was being driven by Shri Nidhan Singh.  

As a result of the said accident, the appellants herein as also Khairati Lal  

fell down on the road.  Whereas Khairati Lal and the appellant Sheela  

Rani, wife of the deceased suffered head injuries, left leg of the appellant  

Budhwanti  was  crushed  under  the  wheels  of  the  vehicle.   They were  

taken  to  the  A.P.Jain  Hospital,  Patiala  for  treatment.   Khairati  Lal  

succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.   

3. Contending that the said accident had taken place owing to rash  

and  negligent  driving  of  Nidhan Singh,  three  claim applications  were  

filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala.   

One of the contentions raised by the respondent No. 3 – Insurance  

Company was  that  neither  Khairati  Lal  nor  respondent  No.  1  Nidhan  

Singh was holding any valid driving licence.   

4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival pleadings of the  

parties, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether Sheela Rani received injuries  due to  rash and negligent  driving of  Trala  No.  HR 38  6785  being  driven  by  Nidhan  Singh respondent No. 1? If so its effect? 2. Whether  Budhwanti  also  received  injuries due to rash and negligent driving of  Trala  No.  HR  38  6785  being  driven  by

3

Nidhan  Singh  respondent  No.  1?  If  so  its  effect? 3. Whether Khairati Lal died due to rash  and negligent  driving of  Trala No.  HR 38  6785  being  driven  by  Nidhan  Singh  respondent No. 1?  If so its effect? 3A Whether the claimants are entitled to  any compensation? If so to what amount and  from whom? 4. Whether  Nidhan  Singh  respondent  No. 1 was not having valid driving licence at  the time of accident? 5. Whether this claim petition is bad for  non-joinder of necessary parties?”

5. The  learned  Tribunal  on  the  basis  of  the  materials  brought  on  

record  held issue Nos.  1  to  3  in  favour  of  the  claimants  opining that  

Sheela  Rani  and  Budhwanti  Devi  ,  appellants  herein  had  sustained  

injuries  owing to  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  respondent  No.  1  

Nidhan Singh and Khairati Lal died for the self-same reasons.  Issue No.  

4 was also decided in favour of the claimants – appellants.  Issue No. 5,  

however, was not pressed.

6. Whereas the appellant Sheela Rani was granted compensation for a  

sum of  Rs.  4,11,000/-  on  account  of  death  of  Khairati  Lal,  she  was  

awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in respect  of her own injuries.   While  

determining the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,11,000/- , the learned  

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/- per month and  

one –third therefrom was deducted to arrive at the aforesaid amount.  The  

learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- in favour of the appellant

4

Budhwanti on account of permanent disability suffered by her including  

disfigurement in the said accident.

7. Aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the  said  award,  appellants  

preferred  three  separate  appeals  before  the  High  Court  inter  alia  

contending that the income of Khairati Lal should have been calculated at  

Rs.  8000/-  to  Rs.  10,000/-  per  month  and  not  at  Rs.  4,500/-  by  the  

Tribunal.

8. So far as  the injuries  suffered by the  appellant  Sheela  Rani  are  

concerned, it was contended that she had spent an amount of Rs. 1.50  

lakh on her medical treatment and as amount should have been awarded  

in  her  favour.   Apart  therefrom  enhancement  of  the  amount  of  

compensation on other heads was also claimed.

9. Budhwanti, whose leg was amputated, also raised a contention that  

she had spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.  Besides  

the same, she had also spent towards hire of services of an attendant and  

would furthermore be required to incur expenditure of Rs. 500/- to Rs.  

600/- per month therefor.

10. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, enhanced  

the amount of compensation in respect of death of Khairati  Lal to Rs.

5

5,55,000/-  and for injuries  suffered by the appellants  Sheela  Rani  and  

Budhwanti to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,70,000/- respectively.

11. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed by the appellants  

herein.

12. It is unfortunate, we must note at the outset, that the High Court did  

not assign sufficient or cogent reasons in support of its judgment.

13. Appellants contend that Khairati Lal was aged about 35 years at the  

time of his death. He was running a general merchant shop.  He is said to  

have  been  selling  shoes  also.   Although  in  support  of  the  said  plea,  

income tax receipts were filed,  the learned Tribunal did not place any  

reliance thereupon.  It was opined that the income of Khairati Lal was Rs.  

4500/- per month.  The learned Tribunal, furthermore, held that the age of  

the deceased in view of the post mortem report (Exhibit PW.3/A) was 43  

years.  In the aforementioned premise, multiplier of 11 was applied.   

The  High  Court,  however,  while  maintaining  the  quantum  of  

income of Khairati Lal at Rs. 4500/- per month, applied the multiplier of  

15.   The  High  Court  proceeded  to  apply  the  multiplicand  and  the  

multiplier with reference to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor  

Vehicles  Act,  1988 (for short  “the Act”).   The Tribunal  and the High  

Court,  however,  failed  to  take  into  consideration  that  the  multiplier

6

specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act may not have any  

co-relationship with computation of the quantum of compensation on an  

application filed under Section 166 thereof.   

It, however, appears that the deceased Khairati Lal apart from his  

mother Budhwanti and wife Sheela Rani had three children, who were  

minors at the material time.   

Respondents  have  not  preferred  any  appeal  questioning  the  

correctness of the amount awarded by the High Court.  We, therefore, do  

not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court as  

regards compensation paid owing to the death of the deceased Khairati  

Lal as we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation paid was  

sufficient having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the learned  

Tribunal as also the High Court.

14. So far as that part of the appeal preferred by the appellant Sheela  

Rani as regards compensation paid to her for her injuries and the appeal  

preferred by the appellant Budhwanti are concerned, neither the Tribunal  

nor the High Court considered the evidences of the witnesses examined  

on behalf of the claimants.

15. Why the amount claimed by the claimants towards expenses for  

obtaining medical treatment had been rejected has not been stated.  On

7

what  basis  the  compensation  on  other  heads,  viz.,  pain  and  suffering  

expenses, special diet expenses, expenses on transportation, expenses on  

attendant,  compensation  for  disfigurement  and  social  discomfort,  etc.  

have been granted is not known.  Figures have been arrived at without  

discussing the materials on records, without analyzing the evidences and  

without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons therefor.   

16. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be met  

if the claim petitions filed by Sheela Rani and Budhwanti with regard to  

the amount of compensation for their personal injuries are remitted to the  

High Court for consideration of the matters afresh.  We, however, make it  

clear that as the respondents herein did not prefer any appeal, the amount  

of compensation already granted by the High Court shall not be interfered  

with and the only question which would be considered by the High Court  

is as to whether the claimants for sustaining injuries on their persons, are  

entitled to a higher amount of compensation on the basis of the materials  

brought on record by the parties.

17. That part of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4315 of  

2007 preferred by Sheela Rani as regards compensation awarded owing  

to  the  death  of  her  husband  is  dismissed;  the  other  part  relating  to  

compensation paid to her for her injuries is  allowed and Civil  Appeal  

arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  No.  4130  of  2007  preferred  by  Budhwanti  is  

allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions.  We would,

8

however, request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing  

the matter at an early date and preferably within three months from the  

date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..………………………….. …J.     

[Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi; July 31, 2009