http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2926-2927 of 2007

PETITIONER: New India Assurance Company Ltd

RESPONDENT: Smt. Shanti Pathak and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL  APPEAL NOS.  2926-2927 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C.) Nos.20101-02 OF 2005) (With C.A.No 2928/07 @ SLP (C) No.3957 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

C.A.Nos 2926-2927/07 @ SLP ) Nos.20101-02/05 1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeals is to the legality of the  judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Uttranchal High  Court dismissing the appeal filed before it under Section 173  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’). The Motor  Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, F.T.C.  Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the ’tribunal’) awarded a  sum of Rs.4,10,000/- in favor of the respondents 1 and 2  (hereinafter referred to as the ’claimants’).

3.      The background facts which are almost undisputed  essentially are as follows:

4.      On 11.11.2002 Hem Pathak (hereinafter referred to as  the ’deceased’) who was at the relevant point of time 25 years  of age lost his life in a vehicular accident. He was traveling in  Jeep No.UP 03/0805. The said jeep had a collision with truck  bearing No.UP 20A-8491. Since the truck was the subject  matter of insurance, the parents of the deceased filed a Claim  Petition. The Tribunal as noted above awarded Rs.4,10,000/-.  Since the age of the deceased was 25 years, multiplier of 17  was applied. The Tribunal referred to various decisions of this  Court for quantifying the amount as Rs.4,10,000/-.

5.      Before the High Court it was contended by the appellant  that the multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the  age of the claimants and not on the age of the deceased, which   was to be taken as the basis for working out the  compensation. The High Court did not find any substance in  this plea. It was held that no permission had been granted to  the insurer to contest its claim.  It was submitted that it is a  clear case of contributory negligence and the quantum of  compensation should be suitably divided. The High Court did  not find any substance in this plea also.  

6.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that both the trial Court and the High  Court failed to notice the age of the claimants which was

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

relevant and not the age of the deceased.  

7.      Considering the income that was taken, the foundation  for working out the compensation cannot be faulted. The  monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. In the normal  course we would have remitted the matter to the High Court  for consideration on the materials placed before it. But  considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, it  would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering  the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at  the time of the accident and age of the father is more than 65  years. Taking into account the monthly contribution at  Rs.3,500/- as held by the Tribunal and the High Court, the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         entitlement of the  claim would be Rs.2,10,000/-.  The same  shall bear interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the application  for compensation. Payment already made shall be adjusted  from the amount due.   

8.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to  costs.  

Civil Appeal No.   2928/07 @ SLP ) No.3957/06                                                                                  

       In the instant case the age of the deceased was 52  years as per the post mortem report, and  the multiplier  thus has to be  8 instead of 13 as adopted by the Tribunal  and upheld by the High Court.  The rate of interest  awarded does not need any interference. The monthly  income has to be taken as Rs. 11,684/- and one-third has  to be deducted therefrom for personal expenses. Thus, the  annual loss of income comes to Rs.93,939/-. The same is  rounded to Rs.93,000/-. The entitlement for loss of income  comes to Rs.7,44,000/-. The other amounts awarded by  the Tribunal totaling Rs.29,500/- remain unaltered. Thus  the claimant is entitled to Rs.7,73,500 alongwith interest  at the rate fixed by the Tribunal.  The payment already  made shall be adjusted.          The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with  no order as to costs.