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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  682 of 2008

PETITIONER: The APSRTC, rep. by its General Manager and Anr.

RESPONDENT: M. Ramadevi and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11647 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.   2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned  Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  The  appellant-Corporation had filed an appeal before the High  Court questioning correctness of the award made by the Motor  Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Addl. District Judge, R.R.  District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as  the \021Tribunal\022).

3.      Background facts are as follows:         A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988 was filed by the respondents claiming compensation  of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of M. Nageshwar Rao  (hereinafter referred to as the \021deceased\022) in an accident on  18.5.1998.  The deceased was working as a driver of the  appellant-Corporation.  In the claim petition it was stated that  the because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus  No.A.P.10 Z 998 belonging to the Corporation which was being  driven in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased lost his  life.  It was claimed that the deceased was 38 years of age and  was an employee of the Corporation and was earning salary of  Rs.4,467.50 p.m.  The appellant-Corporation filed its objection  before the Tribunal taking the stand that it was not liable to  pay any compensation.  The quantum of salary claimed and  the age was also disputed.       4.      The Tribunal observed that the age of the deceased was  40 years of age and he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m.  and after deduction his take home pay was Rs.2,367/- and the  total emoluments was Rs.3,983/-.   Applying the multiplier of  12 the entitlement was fixed at Rs.2,16,000/-, in addition  Rs.15,000/- for non-pecuniary damages and Rs.5,000/- as  consortium was awarded.  Thus the total compensation  awarded was fixed at Rs.2,46,000/-.  The same was directed to  be paid with interest @ 12% p.a.   

5.      The appellant-Corporation filed appeal before the High  Court.  It is to be noted that the claimants did not prefer any  appeal.  The High Court held that the award as made was  inadequate and just compensation was not awarded.  

6.      The High Court was of the view that the pay of the  deceased was Rs.3,536/- and not Rs.2,367/- as noted by the

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

Tribunal.  Accordingly, it fixed the basic pay of Rs.3,500/-  after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses.  The  monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.2,333/- and the annual  contribution at Rs.27,996/-.  The multiplier was taken at 12.   Accordingly, entitlement was fixed at Rs.3,35,952/- to which  was added the sum of Rs.20,000/- additionally awarded by  the Tribunal.

7.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that when there was no appeal by the  claimants in the appeal filed by the appellant-corporation, the  High Court should not have enhanced the amount.  It was also  submitted that the multiplier as adopted was high.   

8.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that there is no embargo on the Tribunal or the  High Court awarding compensation exceeding the amount  claimed.  It was also submitted that the interest was reduced  to 9% from 12% as fixed by the Tribunal.  It was, therefore,  submitted that there was no infirmity in the High Court\022s  order.          9.      In Nagappa vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors. (2003 (2) SCC  274) para 21 as follows:   \02421. For the reasons discussed above, in our  view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction  that the Tribunal/court cannot award  compensation amount exceeding the claimed  amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is  to award \023just\024 compensation which is  reasonable on the basis of evidence produced  on record. Further, in such cases there is no  question of claim becoming time-barred or it  cannot be contended that by enhancing the  claim there would be change of cause of  action. It is also to be stated that as provided  under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the  report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under  sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated  as an application for compensation under the  MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the  court may permit amendment to the claim  petition.\024  

10.     The other question that remains to be adjudicated is  whether the income has been rightly adopted by the Tribunal  and the High Court was correct and whether the correct  multiplier was adopted.   

11.     Considering the figure in the Ex.A/7 the monthly income  taken at Rs.3,000/- after deducting 1/3rd therefrom the  annual contribution is fixed at Rs.24,000/-.

12.     Adopting the multiplier of 10, the amount payable to the  claimants comes to Rs.2,40,000/- to that shall be added the  amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for non- pecuniary damages and consortium as there was no challenge  by the Corporation to the award of such amounts.  Therefore,  the entitlement of the claimant comes to Rs.2,60,000/-.  The  interest rate of 9% fixed by the High Court does not warrant  any interference.  A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited  by the Corporation pursuant to the direction given by this  Court on 19.7.2004. Admittedly, the same has been  withdrawn by the claimants.  The balance amount shall be

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

deposited by the appellant-Corporation within six weeks from  today. Tribunal shall fix the terms for withdrawal/deposit of  the amount in FDs as deemed appropriate.                     13.     The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  No costs.