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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6313 of 2001

PETITIONER: Bilkish

RESPONDENT: United India Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2008

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6313 of 2001

A.K.MATHUR,J.

1.      This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.7.2000 passed  by the  Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the  Division Bench has ordered the compensation in sum of Rs. 1,65,000/-  towards dependency and Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of estate & funeral  expenses. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal  was  preferred by the appellant for suitable enhancement of the  compensation.         Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal  are as under: 2.      That one Hazi Mohammed Haneef died in a motor accident on  30.3.1993 when a tempo bearing No. CAA 6591 dashed   against the   motorcycle  (KA-01-H-7054) which he was riding.  He ultimately  succumbed to injuries and died.  Therefore, the  claimants (the  parents of the deceased) filed MVC No. 1039/1993 claiming  compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- under the various heads. The Tribunal  allowed the claim petition in part by judgment and award dated  23.9.1996 and held that accident took  place due to  negligent  driving of the tempo bearing No. CAA 6591 and held that  claimants  were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 6%  p.a. from  the date of petition to the date of realization.    The  compensation amount awarded in sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards loss of  dependency and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate & funeral  expenses.     3.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased  was 20 years of age and  was a bachelor.  His parents were  aged 47  years and 42 years respectively.   The  deceased was studying in  First Year B.Com. course and  he was also the proprietor of a  business carried under the name  and style of H.S. Traders and  was  an income-tax assessee.  The deceased had  an  income of Rs. 31,494/-  in his business and had paid the income-tax on that.    The Tribunal  had erroneously  deducted 50%  towards his personal, living expenses  and the contribution to the family/dependency worked out to   Rs.  15,000/- per annum.  The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11, looking  to the age of the parents and  arrived at the total loss of   dependency at Rs. 1,65,000/-.    Learned counsel submitted that the  assessment made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court was  totally erroneous.  The incumbent was a bachelor,  therefore, he  could not spend 50% of his income on himself. But three-fourth of the  income was contributed to the family and , therefore, the dependency  assessed by the Tribunal and by the High Court for a sum of Rs.  15,000/- was not correct.  It  was also submitted that the multiplier  of 11 applied by the Tribunal was also not correct. 4.       After hearing learned counsel for the parties,  we are of the

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

opinion that the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not  correct. The incumbent  was a bachelor and he could not have spent  more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the   amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty.    Therefore, determining the  loss of dependency by  50%  was not  correct. Therefore,  we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards  personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his  income to his family.     Therefore, we work out that Rs. 30,000/- earned by him per annum.   The loss of dependency was 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 20,000/- .  The multiplier   of  ’11’  applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as  per schedule appended to the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it should  be  ’12’.  Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency  will be Rs. 20,000/-x 12 =  Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs, 10,000/- towards  loss of estate & funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to  Rs. 2,50,000/- and  incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9/% per  annum from the date of the petition.    The  appeal is allowed with  the  aforesaid modification.  If any amount had already been paid to  the claimant then that amount  may be deducted from the total amount.   Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to  costs.