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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1009 of 2004

PETITIONER: Fakeerappa and Anr.  

RESPONDENT: Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Ors.   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/2004

BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22032/2002)

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

       Leave granted.  

       Appellants were the parents of one Yallappa Angadi  (hereinafter referred to as ’deceased’) who died in a  vehicular accident. The appellant No.1 filed a claim  petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the  ’Act’) in the Court of First Additional District Judge and  M.A.C.T. Dharwad (in short the ’Tribunal’) claiming  compensation. In the Claim Petition the appellant No.2  herein, i.e. the mother of the deceased was added as a  formal party-respondent No.5. The Tribunal noticed that  the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. It  accepted that the deceased was getting Rs.2000/- p.m. On  that basis to work out loss of dependency  multiplier of  18 was adopted after deducting 50% of the income for  personal expenses. A total sum of Rupees two lakhs with 6%  interest per annum from the date of application was  awarded as compensation.  

       An appeal was preferred by the claimants under  Section 173 of the Act praying for an increase of the  compensation. The High Court by the impugned judgment  found no merit and dismissed the same.  

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that two points fall for  adjudication. Firstly, whether the deduction of half of  the monthly income for personal expenditure is justified,  and secondly whether the award of 6% interest per annum is  justified.  

       Though the respondents have been served notice, only  counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as  the ’insurer’).  

       Learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that  there cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the  percentage or quantum of deduction. The Tribunal and the  High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold  that 50% deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope  for any interference with the percentage of deduction as

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

fixed. Further, before the High Court there was no  challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.  Therefore, for the first time before this Court such a  grievance cannot be raised. It is also submitted that  multiplier of 18 as adopted is on the higher side.  

       What would be the percentage of deduction for   personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule  or formula of universal application. It would depend upon  circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was  a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage,  the contribution to the parents would have been lesser  and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and  the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction.  

       It has to be noted that the ages of the parents as  disclosed in the Claim Petition were totally unbelievable.  If the deceased was  aged about 27 years as found at the  time of post mortem and about which there is no dispute,  the father and mother could not have been aged 38 years  and 35 years respectively as claimed by them in the Claim  Petition. Be that as it may, taking into account special  features of the case we feel it would be appropriate to  restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one-third  of the monthly income. Though the multiplier adopted  appears to be slightly on the higher side, the plea taken  by the insurer cannot be accepted as there was no  challenge by the insurer to the fixation of the multiplier  before the High Court and even in the appeal filed by the  appellants before the High Court the plea was not taken.

       Since there was no question raised about the  correctness of the rate of interest before the High Court,  we do not find any scope for interference with the rate of  interest fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any  challenge to it before the High Court. The appeal is  allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to  costs.

       Before we part with the case we think it necessary to  point out a somewhat shocking state of affairs which came  to our notice. In the Claim Petition filed before the  Tribunal, this Court and the High Court of Karnataka,  Bangalore were impleaded as respondents for no sensible  reason, and in gross abuse of process of law, though by  hindsight absurdity seems to have been set right by  ordering deletion. Though these parties were given up  during adjudication, it is clear that the Claim Petition  was filed without any application of mind by the counsel  concerned as to who would be proper or necessary party or  even a formal party and great sense of responsibility is  expected to be exhibited by those concerned. At least  while impleading a party in Claim Petition, proper  attention ought to be devoted which sadly was not done.