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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  545-546 of 2008

PETITIONER: Ramesh Singh & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Satbir Singh & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.13019-13020 of 2007)

V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      Not being satisfied with the Judgment of the High Court enhancing  the compensation by a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the parents of deceased Banu  Pratap Singh have filed these appeals.  Deceased Banu Pratap Singh was  killed in an accident on 29.3.2004 involving a truck which was being driven  by first respondent, Satbir Singh.  The truck belonged to Municipal  Corporation of Delhi.  At the time of his death, Bhanu Pratap Singh was  about 22 years of age.  It was claimed by the first appellant, i.e., the father  of the deceased that he was 41 years old at the time of death of Bhanu  Pratap Singh.  The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, came to the  conclusion that the annual loss of dependency regarding Bhanu Pratap  Singh could be taken at Rs.28,992/-.  It was further held that Appellant  No.1, the father of the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of  accident and that is how the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 8 years  and held that the total loss of dependency was Rs.2,31,936/-.  Further  compensation of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- on  account of loss of estate was added to the above sum and total  compensation of Rs.2,36,436/- was awarded with interest at 6% from the  date of filing of the petition till realization.  It was held that both  respondents, namely, the driver and the owner, i.e., Municipal Corporation  of Delhi were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation,  however, primary obligation to pay the compensation was fixed against  second respondent.  An appeal was filed by the appellants herein before  the High Court wherein three grounds were raised.  It was firstly contended  that the future prospects were ignored by the Tribunal; secondly it was  contended that the Tribunal was wrong in adopting the multiplier of 8 as  the father of the deceased was only 41 years of age at the time of death;  and the third contention was that no compensation was awarded for the  loss of love and affection of a son to the parents.  The High Court  disbelieved the theory that the father was only 41 years of age on the date  of the accident or that he was confused when he mentioned his age to be  55 years at the time of evidence.  The High Court also disbelieved the High  School certificate in relation to the father and held the claim to be absurd.   The High Court considered the first and the second contentions together  since they were inter-related and held that increase of Rs.50,000/- would  be reasonable, taking into account the possibility of increase in minimum  wages, due to loss of love and affection of the child and pain and  sufferings which the parents would live all their life.  The High Court  passed the order accordingly. 3.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very fairly  does not argue the question of the age of the father and accepted the

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

findings that the father was 55 years at the time of the accident and not 41  years as claimed by him in the appeal filed before the High Court.   However, as regards the application of the multiplier, the learned counsel  heavily relied on the Second Schedule and contends that this was the case  under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and since the age of the  deceased was only 22 years, the multiplier of 16 was liable to be made  applicable.  Alternatively, the counsel submits that atleast the multiplier of  11 ought to have been made applicable considering the age of the  Appellant No.2, the mother of the deceased, to be 52 years.   4.      We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are  of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits.  Considering the law  laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC  720],  it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the  deceased or claimants whichever is higher.  Admittedly, the age of the  father was 55 years.  The question of mother\022s age never cropped up  because that was not the contention raised even before the Trial Court or  before us.  Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below  have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the  father was running 56th  year of his life.  5.      The learned counsel relying on the 2nd Schedule of the Act  contended that the deceased being about 16 or 17 years of age,  a  multiplier of 16 or 17 should have been granted.  It is undoubtedly true that  Section 163-A was brought on the Statute book to shorten the period of  litigation.  The burden to prove the negligence or fault on the part of driver  and other allied burdens u/s 140 or 166 were really cumbersome and time  consuming.  Therefore as a part of social justice, a system was introduced  via Section 163-A wherein such burden was avoided and thereby a speedy  remedy was provided.  The relief u/s 163-A has been held not to be  additional but alternate.  The Schedule provided has been threadbare  discussed in various pronouncements including  Deepal Girishbhai Soni  vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  [(2004) 5 SCC 385].  2nd Schedule  is to be used not only referring to age of victim but also other factors  relevant therefor.   Complicated questions of facts and law arising in  accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on mathematical  equations.  In fact in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok  Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362],  Ahmedi, J.  (As the Chief Justice then was)   has pointed out the shortcomings in the said Schedule and has held that  the Schedule can only be used as a guide.  It was also held that the  selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of  the deceased.  If a youngman is killed in the accident leaving behind aged  parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier  provided by the 2nd Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high  multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the  claimants.  That precisely has happened in this case.  Age of the parents  was held as a relevant factor in case of minor\022s death in recent decision in  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim & Ors. [JT 2007(11)SC  113). In our considered opinion, the Courts below rightly struck the said  balance. 6.      With this, we dispose of these appeals.  There will be no order as to  costs.