http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SMT.  PRERNA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1) 321        1993 SCC  (1) 621  JT 1993 (1)   295        1993 SCALE  (1)218

ACT: Motor Vehicles Act: Accident resulting in death-Award of compensation-Dependency of claimants-Fixing of-Longevity, future increments and loss of  consortium-Consideration  of-Higher  multiplier-Adoption of-Enhancement of compensation and rate of interest.

HEADNOTE: The husband of the petitioner died in a road accident.   His father, wife and minor daughter moved a petition before  the Motor  Accidents Claim Tribunal claiming a  compensation  of Rs.  1,50,000.  The tribunal ordered payment of  Rs.  26,000 and apportioned the amount amongst the widow, minor daughter and  father  at  Rs.  12,000,  Rs.  10,000,  and  Rs.  4,000 respectively.  The Tribunal also ordered payment of interest @ 6% from the date of application. The appeals riled by both the parties were dismissed by  the High  Court.  However, it enhanced the interest from  6%  to 9%.  The widow and minor daughter of the deceased  preferred the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1. There was no evidence before the tribunal to  show that  the deceased was addicted to drinking.   The  tribunal fell  into  patent  error in fixing the  dependency  of  the claimants on the deceased to the extent of Rs. 150 per month on  the  ground  that  he was a drunkard  and  as  such  was spending more amount on himself than on his family. [324B-C] 2.   From  the  evidence  on the record  it  can  safely  be concluded  that the deceased was spending Rs. 300 per  month on  his family and running the house-hold.  On the  date  of the accident, the deceased was 26 years of age.  The  father of  the  deceased was aged about 70 years in 1985  when  the special  leave petition was riled.  Longevity in the  family can, therefore, be 322 assumed.   The tribunal did not give any allowance  for  the future  increments and promotional chances of the  deceased. No  compensation  was awarded for the  loss  of  consortium. Keeping  In view all these facts and circumstances it  would be just and proper to allow 24 years multiplier, as  against the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal.  On this basis a sum of Rs. 86,000 is awarded as compensation to the  three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

claimants.   They shall also be entitled to Interest  @  12% from the date of application before the tribunal.  Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about  15 years  of the accident, there is no question of  making  any deductions  on  any score.  The sum of Rs. 86,000  shall  be apportioned by paying Rs. 40,000 to the minor daughter,  Rs. 30,000  to the widow of the deceased and Rs. 16,000  to  the father of the deceased. [324E-H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1984 of  the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Appeal No. 215 of 1982. Sushil Kumar Jain for the Appellants. Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Nath, (for M/s Rajinder Narain  Co. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. Padmakar  More was going on a bicycle on September  9,  1978 when  he was knocked down by a Bus owned by the  respondent- corporation.   He  succumbed to the injuries  on  the  spot. Narayan,  father of Padmakar, Prerna his widow and Shweta  a minor daughter moved a petition before the First  Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Indore claiming Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.  The tribunal by its award dated April  27, 1982  allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of  Rs. 26,000 with interest at 6% from the date of the application. The  tribunal  further  directed  the  said  amount  to   be apportioned as Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 4,000  amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively.   The tribunal  further  directed  that the  share  of  the  minor daughter be deposited in the State Bank of India, Indore  in reinvestment scheme, which shall be 323 payable  to her on attaining majority.  The  tribunal  based its findings on the following reasoning :               "In view of foregoing discussion my finding is               that the accident took place due to  negligent               driving of the motor bus by the N.A. No.2  and               as  a  result of the  said  accident  Padmakar               sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them               on  the  spot.  Issue No.3- Date of  birth  of               Padmakar  as  per record of  the  Hukum  Chand               Mills  is  16th June, 1952.  He  was  thus  26               years  of  age on the date  of  the  accident.               According  to  pay sheet of  the  Hukum  Chand               Mills for August, 1978 Padmakar was given  Rs.               411.70  paise  as gross salary  excluding  the               deduction on account of advances and Rs. 27 on               account  of  canteen  and  insurance.    After               deduction   of  the  amount  of  canteen   and               insurance  the net amount of salary  comes               to Rs. 384.70 paise.  It appears that Padmakar               was   a  drunkard.   Naturally  he  might   be               spending  more amount on himself than  on  his               family.   The dependency may be taken Rs.  150               per  month.   Padmakar  was young  man  of  26               years.  17 years multiplier would be just  and               proper   in   this  case.   Thus   the   gross               compensation comes to Rs. 30,600.  Out of this               15% are deducted on account of lumpsum payment               and  uncertainties  of  life.   Thus  the  net               compensation  comes to Rs. 26,000. 1 have  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             taken into consideration the future  increment               of  Padmakar and therefore, the  deduction  on               account  of lumpsum payment and  uncertainties               of  life  should  have  been  less  than  15%.               However,  I have deducted 15% keeping in  view               that  the widow of Padmakar is young  lady  of               about 21 years and there is more chance of her               remarriage.   Out of Rs. 26,000, Rs. 4000  are               apportioned to the share of old father Narayan               of Padmakar.  Rs. 10,000 to the share of minor               daughter  of  Padmakar and Rs. 12,000  to  the               share of widow of Padmakar." The  claimants  went  in appeal against  the  award  of  the tribunal.  The Corporation also filed an appeal against  the judgment  of  the  tribunal.  By  a  common  judgment  dated October  9, 1984 the High Court dismissed both the  appeals. The High Court, however, enhanced the interest awarded to 324 the  claimants from 6% to 9%.  This appeal is by  the  widow and  the  minor daughter for  enhancement  of  compensation. Narayan,  father of the deceased has also been impleaded  as proforma respondent. We  have heard learned counsel for the parties.  It  is  not disputed that decreased Padmakar was 26 years of age on  the date  of the accident.  It is also not disputed  that  after deductions  his pay packet used to be Rs. 384.70. There  was no  evidence before the tribunal to show that  the  deceased Padmakar  was addicted to drinking.  The tribunal fell  into patent  error in fixing the dependency of the  claimants  on the deceased Padmakar to the extent of Rs. 150 per month  on the  ground  that Padmakar was a drunkard and  as  such  was spending  more  amount on himself than on his  family.   The High Court on this aspect held as under :               "There  is  no evidence to indicate  that  the               deceased  was a drunkard or that even  at  the               time of the accident he was in a drunken state               and that it is on that account that of his own               he.  fell down on the ground on the  road  and               thus sustained the injuries which resulted  in               his death.’ We  are of the view that from the evidence on the record  it can  safely be concluded that the deceased was spending  Rs. 300 per month on his family and running the house-hold.   We set  aside the finding of the trial court as upheld  by  the High  Court on this issue.  We are further of the view  that the tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of seventeen in this case.  The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death.  The cause-title of the special leave petition shows that Narayan, the father of the deceased  was aged about 70 years in 1985 when the special leave  petition was  filed.   Longevity  in the family  can,  therefore,  be assumed.   The tribunal did not give any allowance  for  the future  increments and promotional chances of Padmakar.   No compensation  was  awarded  for  the  loss  of   consortium. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the  case it  would be just and proper to allow 24  years  multiplier. We, therefore, award Rs. 86,000 as compensation to the three claimants.   They shall also be entitled to interest  @  12% from the date of application before the tribunal.  Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about  15 years  of the accident, there is no question of  making  any deductions on any score.  We further direct that the sum  of Rs. 86,000 shall be apportioned by paying Rs. 40,000 to  the minor  daughter Shweta, Rs. 30,000 to Prerna, widow  of  the deceased and Rs. 16,000 to Narayan the father of the

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

325 deceased.   We  further direct that the share of  the  minor daughter  Shweta  be  deposited  in  the  bank  as  per  the directions of the tribunal.  After deducting the amount,  if any, already paid to any of the claimants the balance amount with interest shall be paid by the respondent-corporation to the  claimants within two months from today.  The appeal  is allowed with costs which we quantify as Rs. 5000 to be  paid by  the Corporation to Prerna, widow of the  deceased.   The appeal is allowed to the above extend. G.N.                                Appeal allowed. 326