http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5823 of 2006

PETITIONER: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. ...Appellant

RESPONDENT: Lalnipuii                                               ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2006

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15507 of 2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NOs.        5824             2006 (Arising out of SLP( C) Nos. 14260-14261 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court , Aizwal Bench at  Aizwal.  By the order dated 18.2.2002, the appeal filed by the  appellant was dismissed for default after hearing learned  counsel for the respondent.  Applications filed for restoration  of the appeal after condonation of delay in presentation of the  same also stood dismissed.  Though the orders challenged in  the appeals related to restoration of the appeal dismissed for  default, it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by  remitting the matter back to High Court for consideration on  merits.   The main ground taken by the appellant before the  High Court was that it had no notice of the transfer of the case  from the Guwahati Bench to the Aizwal Bench and therefore,  there was no appearance.  This plea was turned down by the  High Court on the ground that sufficient notice was given to  the appellant.  Considering the long passage of time and, as  agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are  taken up for disposal on merits of the facts involved.  

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:  One Zoremsangi, who was member of the Indian  Information Service under the Central Government and  working under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,  Government of India lost her life in a road accident on   8.7.1997.  She was travelling from Mumbai to Pune by a bus  belonging to the appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport  Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ’Corporation’).  A  Claim Petition was filed by her mother who is respondent  herein.  In the Claim Petition it was stated that she was aged  about 31 years and 2 months at the time of accident and was  drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-.  Her pay was revised as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission and the  scale of pay was Rs.8,000-275-13,500/- and on that basis her  total emoluments would be Rs.9,340/- with effect from  1.1.1996 i.e. effective date fixed by the Fifth Pay Commission.   The claimant made a claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.  Pursuant to  the notice the appellant entered appearance and took the  preliminary stand that the application was not maintainable  and there was no cause of action.  On the basis of the  pleadings several issues were framed.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizwal ( in short the  ’Tribunal’) considering the material on record awarded  compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and granted interest at the  rate of 15% from the date of judgment till realization.  This  sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was fixed on the following basis:

1. Income of the deceased                       = Rs.1,12,080/-  per annum Rs.9,340 x 12

2. According to the Schedule  Rs.40,000/- annual income Total Compensation is Fixed at Rs.6,40,000/-  Therefore Rs.(6,40,000 x 112.080) 40,000                                          = Rs.17,93, 280/-

3. Deducting one third expenses  if she still alive as per note  under the Schedule.                    (-)     = Rs. 5,97,760/-                                                           Rs.11,95,520/-

4. Funeral Expenses.                     = + Rs. 2,000/- 5. Loss of estate.                               = + Rs.2,500/- 6. Total compensation due      to the claimant is                           =Rs.12,00,020/-        

One month time was granted to satisfy the Award.   

The appellant filed an appeal which was originally heard  by the Guwahati Bench, and was subsequently transferred to  the Aizwal Bench.  The Award was questioned by the appellant  before the Guwahati Bench where the same was registered but   the same was transferred to the Aizwal Bench.  As noted  above, taking into account the non-appearance of the counsel  at the time of hearing, the application was dismissed. The   applications for restoration and for condonation of delay in  filing the said application were dismissed.  Therefore, these  appeals are filed.   

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the  High Court ought to have noticed that the case was  transferred from the Guwahati Bench to the Aizwal Bench and  therefore, there was no appearance on the date fixed.  The  High Court should not have summarily dismissed the appeal  particularly when it was noted in the order that the learned  counsel for the respondent was heard. High Court did not take  note of the fact that the claimant was the mother, who is the  wife of the Chief Secretary of the State. There was no averment  in the Claim Petition that the respondent was dependant on  the deceased.  On the contrary, she being the wife of the Chief  Secretary by no stretch of imagination be treated as having  any dependency on the income of the deceased.  A multiplier

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

of 17 applied is clearly was on higher side.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that no plausible reason was shown to the High  Court for the non-appearance on the date fixed and therefore,  belated applications for restoration and condonation of delay  for presentation of the application were rightly rejected. So far  as the plea of dependency is concerned, it is stated that this  aspect was not raised before the Tribunal and on the contrary  the only ground raised was that no part of the cause of action  arose within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Few facts need to be noted.   

Father of the deceased was not the claimant and it was  only the mother.  There was no material adduced before the  Tribunal to show any dependency on the income of the  deceased.  The multiplier of 17 appears to have been taken on  the basis of the age of the deceased.  The interest rate of 15%  is fixed also on the higher side.

It is fairly a settled position in law that while parents are  the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is  the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier  to be adopted. On that score it is clear that the Tribunal’s  assessment of the quantum of Award was incorrect. (See: Jyoti  Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. (2002(6) SCC 306),  National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Swaranlata Das and  Others (1993 Supp (2) SCC 743) and C.K. Subramania Iyer  and Ors. v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Six Ors. (1969 (3) SCC  64).   

Deceased was the only daughter of her parents and was  not staying with her parents and there is no material to show  that she was contributing to the household expenses.  Taking  into account the age of the claimant and the monthly income  as noticed by the Tribunal, a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall  be payable by the appellant to the respondent as Award.  This  quantum is fixed taking into account the age of the claimant,  income of the deceased and other relevant factors like loss of   love and affection, mental shock etc.  Interest is fixed at the  rate of 7.5% from the date of claim till payment.  It is stated  that a total  sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid to the  respondent. If any further amount is to be paid on the basis of  the direction as contained above, the same shall be paid  within three months from today.  If, however, the amount  already paid is in excess of the entitlement, the same shall be  returned within a period of three months.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no orders as  to costs.