IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 2824   OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2487/2007]

MAHADEV ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

SHIVAPPA AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The only issue which has been raised by the appellant-   claimant before us is  

with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded towards future loss of income.  

The  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal  observed  that  the  appellant  was  

between 30 to 35 years of age and as such the proper multiplier applicable would be  

17  and  taking  his  monthly  income  at  Rs.  30,000/-  per  annum  and  applying  the  

multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- towards future loss of income due to  

permanent disability.   

The High Court in its judgment dated 28.7.2006 has, however, reduced the  

amount  aforesaid,  observing  that  though  the  annual  income  had  been  correctly  

capitalized  at  Rs.30,000/-,  the  multiplier  of  15  should  have  been  applied  after  

deducting 1/3rd in view of the  disability of 100%, the

-2-

amount would work out to Rs. 3 lakhs. The High Court accordingly substituted the

amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as against Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. This order of  

the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.  

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  observations  of  the  High  Court  are  not  

correct. We find that in the case of injury, as in the present case, a deduction of 1/3rd  

amount towards loss of income, which is usually given in cases of death, cannot be  

applied. It has also been fairly submitted before us by the learned counsel  for the  

respondents  that  as  the  appellant  –  claimant  was  30-35  years  of  age,  the  proper  

multiplier would be 17.  If that be so, we find the order of the Tribunal to be correct.   

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the  

High  Court  and  direct  that  the  amount  of  compensation  shall  be  payable  to  the  

claimant in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall, however, be no  

order as to costs.  

..........................J (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

..........................J   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)    NEW DELHI, APRIL 17, 2009.