REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1439/2009)

 Manam Saraswathi Sampoorna    Kalavathi & Ors.                  ….Appellants

Versus

 The Manager APSRTC, Tadepalligudem    A.P. & Anr.        ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of  

this appeal are recapitulated as under:

The deceased was an engineering graduate working as a Branch  

Manager in Fancy Traders Company at Bangalore. He had gone to  

Velpucharla from Bangalore on the eve of Sankranti festival.  

On 11.1.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased, namely, Manam  

Yasovardhana, along with one Tummala Nageswara Rao had gone  

to Gannavaram Village on the scooter bearing No. AP-16-D-699.  

In the evening, they were returning to Velpucharla and when  

they reached the District Electrical Stores, Vatluru, N.H.5  

road at about 6.30 p.m. while the deceased was driving the  

scooter on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously,  

the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-Z-1247 drove in a  

rash  and  negligent  manner  without  blowing  horn  and  while  

proceeding towards Eluru hit the scooter from behind, as a  

result of which the deceased who was driving the scooter died  

on the spot and the pillion rider Tummala Nageswara Rao fell  

down  and sustained injuries. The accident took place because

- 2 -

of rash and negligent driving of the driver – Respondent  

No.2, P. Chittirama Raju of the APRRTC bus bearing No.AP-Z-

1247.

3. The mother, father and sisters of the deceased filed  

a joint claim petition, being Original Petition No.451/1993  

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the  

Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  West  Godavari  District,  

Erulu, A.P.  The Tribunal, after taking into consideration  

the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and  

negligent  driving  of  the  bus  driver  -  1st  

Respondent  (respondent  no.2  herein)  and  dashed  

against the scooter bearing No. AP-16-D-699 being  

driven by the deceased.

(ii) Whether the petitioners (appellants herein)  

are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to  

what amount and against which of the respondents?

4. While dealing with Issue No.(i), the Tribunal stated  

that it is the specific evidence of PW-2, pillion rider of  

the  scooter  driven  by  the  deceased  Yasovardhana  that  on  

11.1.1993  while  returning  to  Eluru  when  they  reached  the  

District Electrical Stores, Vatluru, at about 6.30 p.m., the  

APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-Z-1247 which was being driven by P.  

Chittirama Raju, respondent No.2 herein, dashed the scooter  

from  behind  and  the  deceased  and  the  scooter  fell  down,  

resulting into the death of the deceased on the spot.

5. It  may  be  pertinent  to  mention  herein  that  PW-2  

clearly  stated  that  the  deceased  was  driving  the  scooter  

slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and the  

bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner  

without  blowing  horn  and  while  proceeding  towards  Eluru,  

dashed the scooter from behind.

- 3 -

6. The incident took place on 11.1.1993 at 6.30 p.m. and  

the first information report was lodged at 8.00 p.m. on the  

same  day.  The  post-mortem  certificate  revealed  that  the  

deceased died because of the multiple injuries and the injury  

on the vital part of the brain led to multiple fracture of  

vault and base of skull and due to haemorrhage and shock.

7. The Tribunal accepted the testimony of PW-2 – pillion  

rider and clearly found that the deceased died because of the  

rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC bus.

8. Regarding issue No. (ii) which is about the claim of  

compensation, the appellants had claimed a compensation of  

Rs. 4 lakhs on the ground that the age of the deceased was 24  

years on the date of accident and was getting Rs.5,000 per  

month.  The Tribunal, relying on the certificate issued by  

the  Chartered  Accountant,  Pondicherry,  stated  that  the  

deceased got Rs.60,000/- towards salary and commission during  

the financial year 1991-92 and Rs.50,000/- from 1.4.1992 to  

31.1.1993.  The  accident  took  place  on  11.1.1993.   This  

certificate shows that the total salary and commission for  

the  ten  months  i.e.  from  1.4.1992  to  31.1.1993  was  

Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the gross earnings of the deceased  

was around Rs.5,000/- per month from salary and commission.  

Out  of  this   sum,  if  1/3rd is  deducted  then  the  net  

contribution will be Rs.3,334/- per month which would work  

out to be Rs.40,008/- per annum. The Tribunal took a round  

figure  of  Rs.40,000/-  and  applied  the  multiplier  of  16.  

According to the Tribunal, the total amount would work out to  

Rs.6,40,000/-.  Since the amount was to be paid in lump sum,  

a further deduction of 25% was made and after deduction the  

remaining  payable  amount  was  Rs.4,80,000/-.   Since  the  

appellants  had  claimed  only  Rs.  4  lakhs,  the  Tribunal  

restricted the total compensation at Rs.4 lakhs.

- 4 -

9. The Tribunal also took into consideration the age of  

the mother of the deceased, which was 47 years at that time  

and applying the multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation  

worked out to be Rs.3,90,000/- which is short by Rs.10,000/-  

of  the  total  amount  claimed.   Even  assuming  that  the  

multiplier of 16 was wrongly applied by the Tribunal, the  

Tribunal also calculated the amount of compensation by taking  

into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased,  

which was 47 years at that time, and applying the multiplier  

of  13,  which  worked  out  to  be  almost  the  same  amount.  

Therefore,  the  Tribunal  awarded  the  compensation  of  Rs.4  

lakhs towards loss of future earnings or loss of dependency  

plus Rs.2,000/- towards the funeral expenses in this case.  

The Tribunal further directed that the appellants would be  

entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the  

amount of compensation from the date of application till the  

date of realization.

10. The Manager of the APSRTC – the 1st respondent herein,  

preferred  an  appeal  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature,  

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, under Section 173 of the Motor  

Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment of the Tribunal.  

The High Court relied on the first information report and, in  

paragraph 8 of the impugned order, mentioned that the first  

information report was lodged at 8.00 p.m. on 11.1.1993 and  

that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving  

of the APSRTC bus.

11. The  High  Court  strangely  observed  that  the  motor  

vehicle inspector inspected the bus of the APSRTC at Taluq  

Police Station on 12.1.1993 at about 3.30 p.m. and did not  

find any damage or blood stains on the tyres of the bus and  

that the efficiency of foot brake of the bus was good and its  

action was even.

- 5 -

12. The High Court while evaluating the evidence of PW-2  

has observed that when according to PW-2, he was thrown away  

into the bushes then how could he see the number of the bus?  

This is not explained by PW-2.  It is further mentioned that  

it is not even the case of PW-2 that he had filed any claim  

petition seeking compensation for the injuries received by  

him in the accident.   So the evidence of PW-2 that he could  

note the number of the bus that sped away, is difficult to be  

believed or accepted. The High Court further observed that if  

the bus was being driven at a high speed and on dashing  

against the scooter from behind, there should be a dent at  

least on the front or side portion of the body of the bus,  

but there was no damage to the bus.

13. The  approach  of  the  High  Court  in  evaluating  the  

evidence  of  PW-2  is  entirely  erroneous.  How  could  the  

evidence  of  PW-2  be  discarded  on  the  ground  that  after  

sustaining minor injuries he did not file a claim petition?  

This  cannot  be  an  appropriate  manner  of  appreciating  the  

evidence.  When  no  question  was  asked  in  the  cross-

examination, then how PW-2 could be expected to give reply to  

the question? The High Court by adopting erroneous method of  

scrutinizing the evidence has discarded the evidence of PW-2.

14. The  High  Court  further  observed  in  the  impugned  

judgment that the possibility of the deceased, while driving  

the scooter at a high speed, falling down and sustaining head  

injury cannot be ruled out.  This finding is totally contrary  

to the record of this case. PW-2 has categorically stated in  

his  evidence  that  the  deceased  was  driving  slowly  and  

cautiously on the left side of the road and the driver of the  

bus  was  driving  the  bus  in  a  rash  and  negligent  manner  

without blowing horn.

- 6 -

15. The  High  Court  further  observed  that  significantly  

the driving license of the deceased was not produced. So the  

possibility of the deceased not possessing a driving licence,  

and his falling down due to lack of experience and sustaining  

the head injury cannot be ruled out. There is no basis, logic  

and rationality in arriving at this conclusion.

16. The High Court was totally unjustified in weaving out  

a  new  case  which  is  not  borne  out  from  the  evidence  on  

record. Similarly, the High Court erroneously observed that  

the possibility of respondent Nos.1 to 5 (appellants herein)  

influencing the police and getting an FIR registered with  

time and date of their choice cannot be ruled out and the  

possibility of PW-2 not being with the deceased at the time  

of  accident  and  his  implicating  a  bus  belonging  to  the  

appellant  (respondent  no.1  herein)  as  having  caused  the  

accident also cannot be ruled out, because if really PW-2 was  

thrown away into the bushes due to the impact, as stated by  

him, he would have sustained at least some scratches and  

would  have  been    referred  to  government  hospital.   The  

entire analysis of evidence by the High Court is erroneous  

and faulty.  There was no basis for the High Court to come to  

the  conclusion  that  the  possibility  of  the  respondents  

(appellants herein), influencing the police and getting the  

FIR registered with time and date of their choice cannot be  

ruled out.

17. This appeal by special leave filed by the appellants  

is  delayed  by  654  days  and  this  delay,  according  to  the  

affidavit filed by the appellants, occurred due to extreme  

poverty. The appellants could not collect necessary funds to  

file the special leave petition before this Court. In the  

background of the facts of this case, the observation of the  

High Court that the possibility of the appellants influencing  

the police and getting an FIR registered with time and date  

of their choice cannot be ruled out, is wholly erroneous and  

without any basis.

- 7 -

18. The  High  Court  has  wrongly  observed  that  the  

possibility of PW-2 not being with the deceased at the time  

of accident and his implicating the bus belonging to the  

respondents herein cannot be ruled out, is also without any  

basis or foundation whatsoever.

19. The High Court erroneously observed that there is no  

evidence that the deceased died because of serious injuries  

received due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of  

the  APSRTC.   The  High  Court  further  observed  that  the  

Tribunal  was  in  error  in  taking  the  multiplier  from  the  

Schedule II of the Act because on the date of the accident,  

Schedule II of the Act was not there in the Act and it was  

incorporated only by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 with effect  

from 14.11.1994.

20. Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, learned counsel for the  

appellants has drawn our attention to the judgment of this  

Court in  Lata Wadhwa and Ors. vs.  State of Bihar and Ors.,  

(2001) 8 SCC 197.  This case pertains to an accident which  

had  taken  place  on  3.3.1989  in  Jamshedpur.   She  has  

particularly drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the said  

judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“………It has been held that the multiplier method  having  been  consistently  applied  by  the  Supreme  Court to decide the question of compensation in  the cases arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act,  the said multiplier method has been adopted in the  present case.”

21. She has further drawn our attention to paragraph 8 of  

the judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“The  multiplier  method  is  logically  sound  and  legally  well-established  method  of  ensuring  a  'just' compensation which will make for uniformity  and certainty of the awards. A departure from this  method  can  only  be  justified  in  rare  and  extraordinary  circumstances  and  very  exceptional  cases.”

- 8 -

22. The  aforesaid  judgment  was  available  when  the  

judgment of the High Court was delivered. The High Court, on  

the one hand, came to the clear conclusion that the deceased  

did not die because of the rash and negligent act of the  

respondents and on the other hand, it awarded compensation of  

Rs.75,000/-. If the High Court was clearly of the view that  

the deceased did not die because of the serious injuries  

sustained on account of rash and negligent act of the driver,  

then no compensation ought to have been awarded. The findings  

of  the  High  Court  are  totally  contradictory  and  

unsustainable.

23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are  

left with no choice but to set aside the impugned judgment of  

the  High  Court  and  we  do  so.  Consequently,  the  judgment  

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Godawari  

District, is restored.

24. The  amount  of  compensation  which  has  already  been  

given to the appellants would be adjusted and the remaining  

amount, with interest as directed by the Tribunal, would be  

handed over to the appellants within two months from today.  

In  case,  the  amount  is  not  paid  within  a  period  of  two  

months, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15%  

per annum.

25. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of  

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

….……….....................J          (DALVEER BHANDARI)

……….......................J                                  (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

New Delhi;

March 26, 2010