Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4762 OF 2006

MOHD. AMEERUDDIN & ANR. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.  & ANR.  … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

This  is  the  claimants’  appeal  by  grant  of  special  leave  

arising from a motor accident claim case.  The appeal is directed  

against the judgment and order dated July 28, 2004, passed by the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2081 of  

2004.  By the impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the  

appeal filed by the Insurance Company (the respondent herein) and  

reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the  

head “loss of earnings” from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,60,000/-.  

The  appellants’  son  namely,  Aslamuddin  died  in  a  motor  

accident on October 22, 1997.  He worked as a Cleaner on the lorry  

tanker  that  met  with  the  accident.   His  parents,  the  present  

appellants filed a claim application (O.P. no.954 of 1997) before  

the  Motor  Accident  Claims  Tribunal  (Additional  District  Judge),  

Nizamabad  claiming  Rs.5,00,000/-  as  compensation  for  his  death.  

Before the Tribunal, the proceedings were held ex parte against the  

owner of the tanker but the respondent, the insurer of the vehicle  

appeared and resisted the claim of the appellants.  The Tribunal

found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving  

by the driver of the tanker.  It further found that at the time of  

death  Aslamuddin was  aged 20  years. He  was getting  a salary  of  

Rs.2,500/- per month besides ‘batta’ (daily allowance) at the rate  

of Rs.50/-.  His monthly earning, thus, came to Rs.4,000/- that is  

to say Rs.48,000/- per annum.  After deducting 1/3rd  towards the  

personal  expenses  of  the  deceased,  his  net  contribution  to  the  

claimants was held to be Rs.32,000/- per annum.  

The  Tribunal  further  noticed  that  at  the  time  of  death  

Aslamuddin was unmarried and the age of his mother – claimant No.2  

was 40 years.  It, therefore, took the age of the mother of the  

deceased for the purpose of assessing compensation.  Applying the  

multiplier of 16 on the basis of the age of the mother of the  

deceased being 40 years, the Tribunal came to the figure (Rs.32,000  

x 16) of Rs.5,12,000/-. However, since the claimants had only made a  

claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, it awarded the slightly lesser amount as  

claimed by the appellants.

Against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the  

Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court, which, as  

noticed above, was partly allowed. For assessing the monthly income  

of the deceased, the High Court took into account only the monthly  

salary of the deceased and excluded the amount of daily allowance  

(Rs.50/-) from consideration observing as follows:

“However, the Tribunal has erred in including batta  of Rs.50/- per day, as a part of the salary and assessed  the monthly income of the deceased.  Batta is not paid as  a part of the salary, but it is paid whenever there is  work.  It is now well settled that batta shall not be  calculated in the salary in assessing the income of the  deceased.”

The High Court further observed that the proper multiplier,  

appropriate to the age of the mother of the deceased in terms of the  

ratio laid down by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road  

Transport Corporation, Trivandrum  v.  Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC  

176,  is 13.   Thus,  multiplying Rs.30,000  by 13,  the High  Court  

arrived at the figure of Rs,3,90,000/- and taking away from it 1/3rd  

towards the personal expenses of the deceased held that the loss of  

dependency of the claimants would be not more than Rs.2,60,000/-  

under the head “loss of future earnings”.  

We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the High Court  

on  both  counts.   First,  there  was  no  evidence  that  the  daily  

allowance of Rs.50/- was not paid to the deceased every day or even  

that he was not on work on every day of the month.  On the contrary,  

there is evidence on record that apart from the monthly salary of  

Rs.2500/- he was getting Rs.50/- as daily allowance. We, therefore,  

hold that the Tribunal was right in assessing the monthly income of  

the deceased at Rs.4,000/-.

Coming now to the question of multiplier, in light of the  

decision   of  this  Court  in  Sarla  Verma  v.  Delhi  Transport  

Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, 18 would be the proper multiplier  

where the age of the deceased is between 15 and 25 years and 15  

where the age is between 36 and 40 years. The Tribunal has taken the  

age of the  mother for determining the amount of compensation, and,  

therefore, the proper multiplier in this case would be 15 and on  

applying  the  said  multiplier,  the  figure  would  come  to  

Rs.4,50,000/-.  We,  accordingly,  fix  the  amount  of  compensation  

receivable by the appellants under the head “loss of earnings” at

Rs.4,50,000/-.  

The rest of the award made by the Tribunal and affirmed by the  

High Court remains unmodified.   

Needless  to  say  that  the  differential  amount  would  carry  

interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per  annum  from  the  date  of  the  

application till the date of payment.  

In the result, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to  

costs.  

………………………………..J. (Aftab Alam)

………………………………..J. (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi; November 18, 2010.