http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: HERDEO KAUR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1261            1992 SCR  (2) 272  1992 SCC  (2) 567        JT 1992 (2)   409  1992 SCALE  (1)662

ACT:      Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:      Section   110   and   110-B-Accident   claim-Award   of compensation-Criteria   for-Determination   of-Adoption   of Liberal approach-Need for.

HEADNOTE:      The  first appellant, her husband a young Army  officer of 36 years and their two minor sons were injured in a  road accident   when   the   respondent-State   Road    Transport Corporation’s bus struck against the car in which they  were travelling.  While the appellant’s husband succumbed to  the injuries,  one  of he sons received  multiple  injuries  and another  received  injury  on  the  forehead  and   multiple abrasions   on  various  parts  of  the  body.   The   first appellant, however, received minor injuries.      The  first appellant, her two minor sons  and  daughter filed  a  claim petition before the Motor  Accidents  Claims Tribunal.   The Tribunal found that the accident took  place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the  driver. Regarding quantum of compensation, it held that the deceased was spending half of his salary on his personal needs,  that the normal life expectancy of the deceased, who was 36 years of  age  when the mishap occurred, was 20  years  since  the normal  life  span  of an army Officer  was  56  years  and, therefore, a compensation of Rs. 2,64,000 should be  awarded for  the loss of the deceased’s and that after deduction  of 1/3 on account of lumpsum payment, an amount of Rs. 1,76,000 should  be  paid as damages to heirs of the  deceased.   The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3.000 and Rs.1,000 respectively to the two sons.  It further awarded interest at the rate of  6 per  cent per annum from the date of application before  the Tribunal  till the date of realisation.  The widow  and  her children filed appeal before the High Court for  enhancement of compensation but the same was dismissed.      In  the appeal, by special leave, before this Court  on behalf of the                                                        273 widow,  and  her minor children, it was contended  that  the finding of the Courts below that the deceased, being an army officer  used  to spend one half of his salary  on  personal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

expenditure,  was  grossly  erroneous  and  based  on   mere surmised  and conjectures, that it was specifically  pleaded before  the Tribunal that the deceased used to spend  nearly Rs.  1,400  per  month  on  his  family,  which  was  solely dependent upon him, that there was no basis to take the life span  of  an army officer to be 56 years, and it  should  be taken   to be 70 years in the modern environments, that  the deduction  of  1/3rd  assessed compensation  on  account  of lumpsum   payment   was   wholly   unjustified,   that   the compensation awarded to the minor children was on the  lower side  and  that  no compensation was  awarded  for  loss  of consortium to wife and the minor children      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD  : 1.1 There was no basis or justification  before the  Tribunal to have reached the finding that the  deceased was  spending half of the salary on himself.  On  the  other hand, it was specifically claimed by the appellants that  he was  spending  nearly  Rs. 1,400 per month  to  support  his family.  It is common knowledge that personal needs of  army officers  including  drinks  are  supplied  to  them  at   a subsidised price through the Army canteens.  Therefore,  the finding of the courts below is set aside.  The deceased  was spending Rs. 1,400 per month on his family. [277B-C]      1.2 The span of life should be taken to be 70 years  in view  of the high rise in life expectancy.  It is  specially so in the case of Army officers who are disciplined to  live an  active  and  energetic life.   the  courts  below  were, therefore,  not justified in taking the normal span of  life to be 60 years and that of an Army officer 56 years. [277D]      Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ 172, applied.      1.3  The  deduction  of  1/3rd  out  of  the   assessed compensation on account of lumpsum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, 15 years thereafter.  The delay in the final disposal  of  motor accident compensation cases, as  in  all other  classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the  laws of  compensation and added to that the  monstrous  inflation and  the  consequent fall in the value of  rupee  makes  the compensation  demanded years ago, less than quarter  of  its value when it is received after such a long time.  With the                                                   274 value  of  rupee dwinding, due to high  rate  of  inflation, there  is  no  justification for  making  deduction  due  to lumpsum  payment.   Therefore,  the courts  below  were  not justified in making lumpsum deduction in this case.                                              [277E-F, G]      Motor  Owners  Insurance  Company  Ltd  v.  J.K.  Modi, (1981) ACJ 507; Manju Shri Raha v. B.L. Gupta (1977) ACJ 134 and India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1980) ACJ 55, relied on.      1.4  The  Tribunal became oblivious of  the  fact  that there is time bound consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart from that there have been upward revisions in the pay- scales  of Army personnel.  No compensation was awarded  for the  loss of consortium to the wife and children.  Even  the life  expectancy was taken to be as low as  56.  Considering all  these circumstances a multiplier of 24 would  meet  the ends of justice.                                                   [278B-C]      1.5  Thus,  the annual amount which  the  deceased  was spending  for his family comes to Rs.16,800 (Rs. 1400 x  12) which multiplied by 24 comes to Rs.4,03,200.  Therefore, the amount  of damages to be allowed to the  appellant-claimants is assessed at Rs.4,03,200. [278D]      1.6 The Tribunal was right in holding that the injuries

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

on  the  person of the first appellant were not such  as  to entitle   her   to   claim   compensation.    However,   the compensation awarded to the young boys is on the lower side. It  should  be  Rs.  10,000 in the case  of  first  son  and Rs.5,000 in the case of second son. [278E]      1.7 In the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to a  total  sum of Rs.4,18,200 as damages on  account  of  the death of the first appellant’s husband and injuries received by  the two sons.  They are also entitled to claim  interest @  12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal  from  the date of the application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation.   Both  the opposite parties  are  jointly  and severely  responsible to pay the decretal  amount.  [278G-H, 279A]      Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1985)  ACJ 645  and Jagbir Singh and Others v. General Manager,  Punjab Roadways and Others, (1987) ACJ 15, relied on.                                                        275

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 1992.      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  2.3.1988  of  the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 309 of 1980.      Praveen Kumar for the Appellants.      Yogeshwar   Prasad  and  Sushil  Kumar  Jain  for   the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.      Major  Dalip Singh, alongwith his wife Hardeo Kaur  and his two sons Jasminder Singh (10 years) and Balvinder  Singh (7 years), was travelling in his Ambassodor car from Mathura to Delhi on July 30, 1977. A Rajasthan State Road  Transport Corporation’s  bus  driven by Ramesh Chandra  Sharma  struck against  the  Ambassador car driven by  Major  Dalip  Singh. Major  Dalip  Singh, his wife and sons were injured  in  the accident.  Unfortunately Major Dalip Singh succumbed to  the injuries.  Master Jasvinder Singh received multiple injuries including  fracture  of  nasal  bone.   His  yonger  brother Balvinder Singh received injury on the forehead and multiple abrasions  on various parts of body.  Hardeo kaur,  however, received  minor  injuries.  A claim petition  was  filed  by Hardeo  Kaur, her two minor sons and daughter Davendra  Kaur (6  years)  before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal, Mathura.   The  Tribunal by its judgment dated  January  29, 1980  found on the basis of the evidence adduced  before  it that  the  accident  took place due to  rash  and  negligent driving  of  the bus by the driver  Ramesh  Chandra  Sharma. Regarding   quantum  and  assessment  of  compensation   the Tribunal held as under :          "In the present case the evidence shows that  Major          Dalip  Singh  was drawing a monthly salary  of  Rs.          2200.   He  died  leaving a wife  and  three  minor          children.   Normally it is to be presumed that  the          deceased  was  spending  1/3rd  of  his  salary  on          personal expenses. In the present case the deceased          was  an  Army Officer. Experience  shows  that  the          personal  expenses of Army Officers are  more  than          the other Civil servant specially because they have          to spend amount on mess expenses and on drinks etc.          Evidence also shows that Major Dalip Singh."                                                    276          occasionally   used   to   take   drinks,    though

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

        moderately. In view of all these facts I am of  the          opinion that it must be held that Major Dalip Singh          was  spending  half  of  his  salary  on   personal          expenditure  while the remaining half was spent  on          his  family.  He was aged 36 at the time when  this          occurrence took place.  The normal span of life  is          taken as 60 years, but in my opinion in the case of          army  officers  this  span should be  taken  as  56          years.   Army  officers are also  retired  about  4          years earlier than civil government servants.  Thus          the normal expectancy of life of Major Dalip  Singh          was (56-36) 20 years.  Thus the annual amount which          Major Dalip Singh was spending for his family comes          to Rs. 1100x12 = 13,200.00 which multiplied by  20,          which  was  the average expectancy of life  in  his          case,   amounts  to  Rs.2,64,000.  Out   of   this,          deduction  of  1/3rd should be made on  account  of          lumpsum  payment.   The  balance  amounts  to   Rs.          1,76000 which should be the amount of damages to be          allowed  to  the  heirs  of  deceased  Major  Dalip          Singh."      So  far  as  Jasminder Singh and  Balvinder  Singh  are concerned  the  Tribunal  awarded Rs. 3,000  and  Rs.  1,000 respectively.  the  Tribunal  thus  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs. 1,80,000 as  damages on account of the death of Major  Dalip Singh and injuries received by his minor sons.  The Tribunal further awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from  the date of application before the Tribunal  till  the date  of  realisation.  Hardeo kaur and her  children  filed appeal   before   the   High  Court   for   enhancement   of compensation  but the same was dismissed on March  2,  1988. Hence this appeal by the widow and her minor children.      The learned counsel for the appellants has argued  that the  courts below have grossly erred in reaching  a  finding that  the late Major Dalip Singh being an army officer  used to  spend  one half of his salary on  personal  expenditure. According  to him the finding is based on mere surmises  and conjectures.  He has stated that it was specifically pleaded before  the  Tribunal that Major Dalip Singh used  to  spend nearly  1400  per  month  on his  family  which  was  solely dependent  upon  him.  The learned counsel has  also  argued that  there  was no basis to take the life span of  an  army officer  to  be 56 years.  According to him  the  life  span should  be taken to be 70 years in the modern  environments. The  learned  counsel has contended that  the  deduction  of 1/3rd assessed compensation on account of lumpsum                                                       277 payment  is wholly unjustified.  He further  contended  that the  compensation  awarded to the minor children is  on  the lower  side  and  no compensation was awarded  for  loss  of consortium to wife and the minor children.      We  see  considerable  force in the  arguments  of  the learned  counsel for the appellants.  There was no basis  or justification  before  the  Tribunal  to  have  reached  the finding that Major Dalip singh was spending have the  salary on  himself.  On the other hand it was specifically  claimed by the  appellant that he was spending nearly 1400 per month to support his family.  It is common knowledge that personal needs of army officers including drinks are supplied to them at  a  subsidised  price  through  the  Army  canteens.   We therefore,  set aside the finding of the courts  below  and hold  that  late  Major Dalip Singh spending  Rs.  1400  per month on his family.      This Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ 172 has observed that the span of life should be taken to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

70 years in view of the high rise in life expectancy.  It is specially   so  in  the  case  of  Army  officers  who   are disciplined  to  live  an active and  energetic  life.   The courts below were not justified in taking the normal span of life to be 60 years and that of an Army officer 56 years.      We  are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of  the assessed compensation on account of lump-sum payment is  not justified.   The accident took place in July, 1977  and  the litigation  has come to an end, hopefully, today,  15  years thereafter.   This court in Motor Owners  Insurance  Company Ltd v. J.K. Modi, (1981) ACJ 507 held that the delay in  the final  disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as  in all  other classes of litigation, takes a sting out  of  the laws  of  compensation  and  added  to  that  the  monstrous inflation  and  the consequent fall in the  value  of  rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time.  In Manju  Shri  Raha v. B.L. Gupta, (1977) ACJ 134  this  Court awarded  compensation  by multiplying  the  life  expectancy without  making  any deductions.  With the  value  of  rupee dwindling  due  to  high rate of  inflation,  there  is  not justification for making deduction due to lump-sum  payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified in making lump-sum deduction in this case.      This  Court in India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmla  Devi, (1980) ACJ                                                    278 55 held as under :          "The determination of the quantum must be  liberal,          not niggardly since the law values life and limb in          free country in generous scales."      The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is time-bound  consideration for promotion in the Army.   Apart from that there have been upward revisions in the pay-scales of Army personnel.  No compensation was awarded for the loss of  consortium  to  the wife and children.   Even  the  life expectancy  was taken to be as low as 56.   Considering  all these circumstances we are of the view that a multiplier  of 24 would meet the ends of justice.      Thus  the  annual amount which Major  Dalip  Singh  was spending  for his family comes to Rs. 16,800  (Rs.  1400x12) which multiplied by 24 comes to Rs. 4,03,200.  We,therefore, assess the amount of damages to be allowed to the appellant- claimants at Rs. 4,03,200.      We  agree  with the tribunal that the injuries  on  the person  of  Hardeo kaur were not such as to entitle  her  to claim  compensation.  The compensation awarded to the  young boys, according to us, is on the lower side.  We assess  Rs. 10,000  in the case of Jasminder Singh and Rs. 5000  in  the case of Balwinder Singh.      The  tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% p.a.  from  the date  of filing of the application before the tribunal  till the  date of realistion.  In Chameliwati v. Delhi  Municipal Corporation,  (1985) ACJ 645 this Court awarded  interest  @ 12%  p.a.  from  the date of the  application  similarly  in Jagbir Singh and Others v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Others, (1987) ACJ 15, this Court enhanced the  interest from  6%  p.a. to 12% p.a.  We, therefore, hold  that  apart from  the  damages  the appellants  are  entitled  to  claim interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the tribunal.      In view of above discussion the claimants are  entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,18,200 as damages on account of  the death  of  Major  Dalip  Singh  and  injuries  received   by Jasminder  Singh  and Balwinder Singh.  The  appellants  are also entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. from September 3,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

1977,  the date of the application before the tribunal  till the date of                                              279 realisation.   Both  the opposite parties  are  jointly  and severely responsible to pay the decretal amount.      The judgments of the tribunal and of the High Court are modified  and the appeal is allowed in the  terms  indicated above with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000. N.P.V                                   Appeal allowed.