REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    597           OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 13722 of 2007)

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant  

Versus

Shanti Devi and Ors.  ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court allowing the cross objections filed by the claimants

who  are  respondents  herein  while  dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellant-Corporation.

3. Both the appeal and the cross objections related to an award passed in

MACT No. 88/1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kanpur

(in short ‘MACT’). A Claim Petition was filed under Section 110 of the

Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1939 (in  short  the  ‘Act’).  It  was  stated  in  the  said

petition  that  one  Mahesh  Chandra  Verma (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

‘deceased’)  was  the  husband  of  respondent  No.1  and  the  father  of

respondents 2 to 6 and had lost his life in a vehicular accident.  

4. The MACT noted  that  bus No.U.H.K.883 owned by the  appellant-

corporation was involved in an accident on 28.4.1988 and the accident took

place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. So far as the income of

the deceased is concerned it was taken to be Rs.1,000/- p.m. and out of this

Rs.500/- was deducted for personal expenses.  In the post mortem report the

age  of  the  deceased  was  stated  to  be  45  years  and  therefore  taking  the

annual income of Rs.6,000/- the compensation was assessed at Rs.90,000/-

by applying the multiplier of 15 but deduction of 40% was made for lump

sum payment.  Interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application

was awarded.  

2

5. Questioning correctness of the award, the Corporation filed an appeal

and cross objections were filed by the claimants.  The High Court found that

the income as assessed was low and therefore enhanced the same and fixed

the compensation payable at Rs.2,45,000/- with 6% interest. It was held by

the  High  Court  that  the  income  of  the  deceased  can  be  assessed  at

Rs.2,000/- p.m. and one-third was to be deducted for personal expenses and

multiplier of 15 was adopted.  Accordingly, the compensation payable was

worked out.  

6. Stand of  the  Corporation  is  that  since  the  deceased  claimed  to  be

running a business, the same is presumed to be continuing and there is no

loss of income. This plea was turned down by the High Court.  

7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the multiplier as adopted is high. The High Court overlooked the fact

that the cross objections were filed after about 9 years and there is no basis

for taking the income to be Rs.2,000/- p.m.

8. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents-claimants  on  the  other  hand

supported the judgment of the High Court.

3

9. It  was  pointed  out  that  the  delay  in  presentation  of  the  cross

objections was condoned and the same was not questioned. It is true,  as

contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that no material was placed

regarding the income of the deceased and the multiplier as adopted is high.

It is also equally true that delay in filing the cross objections was condoned

without justifiable reasons but condonation order was passed on 9.1.2006

and there  is  no challenge to  the  same.  In  a case where there  is  lack of

material regarding the income of the deceased, some amount of guesswork

is there. But the same should not be totally detached from reality.  

10. In  the  present  case  the  appropriate  multiplier  would  be  11  and

monthly  income  can  be  taken  at  Rs.1500/-.  In  other  words,  the  annual

income  can  be  taken  at  Rs.18,000/-.  Making  one  third  deduction  for

personal  expenses  the  balance  is  Rs.12,000/-  and  if  multiplier  of  11  is

adopted the compensation works out to be Rs.1,32,000/-. The MACT and

the High Court have granted 6% interest from the date of application which

is in order.  It is stated that certain amounts have been deposited before the

MACT and a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in compliance with the

order of this Court dated 17.8.2007. The balance amount shall be deposited

4

with the concerned MACT within four weeks. The mode of disbursement

and amount to be kept in fixed shall be fixed by the MACT keeping in view

the interests of the minors.  

11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.         

……………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, February 3, 2009

5