IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2406 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6671 OF 2004)

Pyare Lal (Dead) & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are the heirs of Suraj Bhan who died on 15th September,  

1996 due to fall from a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No.HR-46/6835  which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, Shri Raj Kumar  

(respondent  No.3  herein).   They  filed  a  petition  under  Section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs by stating  

that the deceased was receiving pension of Rs.3,228/- from the army and salary of  Rs.5,000/-  from  Sterling  International  Worldwide  Couriers,  Bahadurgarh,  with  

whom he was employed at the relevant time.  By an award dated 1st October, 1997,  the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the respondents to pay to the appellants  

a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- by way of compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from  the date of filing the petition till its payment.  In arriving at the figure of Rs.1,26,000/-,  

the Tribunal took into consideration ....2/-

- 2 -

the  amount  of  pension  received  by  late  Suraj  Bhan,  fixed  the  dependency  of  the  appellants  at  Rs.1500/-  per month and applied the multiplier  of  7.   However,  the  

appellants claim based on the salary allegedly received by the deceased from Sterling  International Worldwide Couriers was rejected on the ground that no evidence had  

been produced in that regard. The appellants challenged the award of the Tribunal by filing an appeal  

under Section 173 of the Act.  During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed  an application and placed on record a certificate to show that pension of late Suraj  

Bhan was revised by the Government of India from Rs.3,228/- to Rs.4,556/- per month  with effect from 1st January, 1996.  The High Court did not consider the factum of  

increase in the pension of late Suraj Bhan but enhanced the compensation payable to  the appellant from Rs.1,26,000/- to 1,28,000/- by applying the multiplier of 11.  Feeling  

dissatisfied, the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave. The respondents have not disputed that pension of late Suraj Bhan had  

been revised by the Government of India from Rs.3,228/- to Rs.4,556/- per month with  effect  from 1st January,  1996  and  the  fact  that  a  copy  of  the  certificate  showing  

increase in the pension was produced before the High Court.   In this  view of  the  matter, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the revised pension of  

late  Suraj  Bhan  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the  compensation  payable  to  the  appellants.  In our view, by taking into consideration the revised pension of late Suraj  

Bhan,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  fix  dependency  at  Rs.2,200/-  per  month  and  Rs.26,400/- per annum.  If multiplier of 11 is applied to this amount of dependency,  

the total compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs.2,90,400/-.   ....3/-

- 3 -

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, impugned orders are modified  and it  is  directed  that  the  appellants  shall  be  entitled to  receive  compensation  of  

Rs.2,90,400/-  from  the  respondent.   They  shall  also  be  paid  interest  @ 12% per  annum from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till its payment.

No Costs. ......................J.

     [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, April 13, 2009.