ANJANI SINGH & ORS.versusSALAUDDIN & ORS.

                        [2014] 5 S.C.R. 846


A                      ANJANI SINGH & ORS.
                                 v.
                         SALAUDDIN & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2009)

                          APRIL 25, 2014
B
     [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

         MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s.166 - Fatal accident
    - Compensation - Determination of - Victim-deceased aged
C   35 years - Tribunal determined dependency of claimants-
    appellants as RS. 31,0001- p.a. and applied the multiplier of
    8 since the deceased died at the age of 35 and the age of
    superannuation in the Air Force was 45-50 years - High Court
    held that the assessment of monthly income based on the
o   salary statement by the Tribunal as RS.40301- was correct,
    however, the finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of
    one-third amount towards personal expenses was erroneous
    and deducted only one-fourth of the oompensation towards
    personal expenses and applied multiplier of 10 - Also
E   awarded RS. 2,5001- towards funeral expenses and 5,000
    towards loss of consortium for the widow of the deceased -
    Claimant filed SLP - In view of divergence of view in several
    decisions of Supreme Court, matter was placed before a
    larger Bench which answered the points of reference in favour
F   of the appellants, in the decision reported in *Resh ma Kumari
    - Held: In view of the decision in *Reshma Kumari, the
    appellants were held entitled to future prospects of income -
    Taking monthly salary as RS. 40301-, amount towards future
    prospects determined at 50% with monthly income of RS.
G   40301- came to 20151-, making the total monthly income of
    60451- - Out of RS. 60451-, one fourth i.e. 15111- deducted
    towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the
    decision in **Sar/a Verma case, as the deceased had five
    dependents - The resultant figure came to RS. 45341- p.m.

H                                846
    ANJANI SINGH & ORS. v. SALAUDDIN & ORS.               847

which after multiplying by 12 came to RS. 54,4081- as annual A
income - Applying multiplier of 16, the amount under head
of loss of dependency came to RS. 8, 70,5281- - Further, RS.
25,0001- awarded towards funeral expenses, 1,00,0001-
awarded towards loss of love and affection of the children and
the parents, and further, RS. 1,00,0001- awarded towards loss 8
of consortium by the widow of the deceased - A/so, a sum of
 RS. 25,0001- awarded for the cost of litigation - Therefore, the
total amount came to RS. 11,20,5281- - Appellants having
already received RS. 5,05,5191- are entitled to the remaining
amount, i.e. RS. 6, 15, 0091 - - This amount shall bear interest C
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till
 the date of payment.

       The husband of the claimant-appellant no. 1 aged 35
  years died in a motor accident. The Tribunal held that the
  victim-deceased died due to rash and negligent driving .0
  of respondent no. 1 and awarded Rs. 2.49 lacs as
  compensation. The Tribunal determined the dependency
  of appellants as RS. 31,000/- per annum and applied the
  multiplier of 8 since the deceased died at the age of 35
  and the age of superannuation in the Air Force was 45- E
  50 years. Aggrieved, the claimant filed an appeal seeking
  enhancement of the compensation. The High Court
  allowed the appeal and held that the assessment of
  monthly income based on the salary statement by the
  Tribunal as RS. 40301- was correct, however, the finding F
  of the Tribunal leading to deduction of one-third amount
  towards personal expenses was erroneous. This finding
  of the Tribunal was set aside and only one-fourth of the
  compensation was deducted towards personal
  expenses. The total dependency amount came up to RS. G
  3,62,7001- by applying a multiplier of 10. RS. 2,5001- was
  awarded towards funeral expenses and RS. 5,000
  towards loss of consortium for the widow of the
  deceased. In total, a compensation of RS. 3,70,2001- was
· awarded. Still aggrieved, the claimant filed special leave
                                                             H
    848      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2014] 5 S.C.R.

A petition. This Court granted leave, and referred the issue
  to a larger bench. This was in view of the divergence of
  opinion across several judgments of the Supreme Court,
  and this aspect of the matter having not been considered
  in the earlier decisions. The matter was placed .before a
8 larger  Bench which answered the points of reference in
  favour of the appellants, in the decision reported in
  *Resh ma Kumari.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

c      HELD: In view of the decision in *Reshma Kumari, the
  appellants were held entitled to future prospects of
  income considered at the time of determination of
  compensation both by the Tribunal and High Court.. The
  monthly salary of the deceased was taken as RS. 4030/-
D by the Tribunal. The High Court had taken 50% of the
  monthly salary to arrive at the multiplicand. Therefore,
  towards future prospects at the rate of 50% with monthly
  income of RS. 4030/- it would come to RS. 2015/-, making
  the total monthly income to RS. 6045/-. Out of 6045/-, one
E fourth i.e. 1511/- is deducted towards personal expenses
  of the deceased, as per the decision of this Court in** Sar/a
  Verma case, as the deceased had five dependents. Thus,
  the resultant figure would be RS. 4534/- per month which
  after multiplying by 12 would come to RS. 54,408/- as
F annual income. Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount
  the head of loss of dependency would come to RS.
  8,70,528/-. Further a sum of 25,000/- is awarded towards
  funeral expenses; , a sum of RS. 1,00,000/- is awarded
  towards loss of love and affection of the children and the
  parents, and further, a sum of RS. 1,00,000/- is awarded
G towards loss of consortium by the widow of the deceased.
  Also, a sum of RS. 25,000/- is awarded for the cost of
  litigation. Therefore, the amount would come to RS.
  11,20,528/-. Further, the Tribunal has passed the award inj
  the year 2000 and the appellants have received RS.
H
   ANJANI_ SINGH & ORS. v. SALAUDDIN & ORS.              849


3,25,298/- on 22.7.2000 and RS. 1,80,221/- on 9.3.2007. In      A
total they have received RS. 5,05,519/-. Now, they are
entitled to the remaining amount, i.e. RS. 6, 15,009/-. This
amount shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of application till the date of payment. Out of this
amount, 50% shall be deposited in any nationalized bank         B
of appellants' choice and the remaining amount to be paid
to them through demand draft within six weeks. [Para 4)
[853-D-H; 854-A-D]

     *Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013)
9 SCC 65: 2013 (2) SCR 706; **Sa/ra Verma & Ors. V. Delhi       C
Transoport Corporatio_n & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121: 2009 (5)
 SCR 1098; Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9
SCC 54; Bairam Prasad v. Kuna/ Saha & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC
384; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362: 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR            D
443; Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy
Victims Association & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 481: 2011 (16)
SCR 1 - relied on.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                E
   1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 443              .
                                Relied on          Para 4•

   2013 (2) SCR 706             Relied on          Para 4

   2009 (5) SCR 1098            Relied on          Para 4
                                                                F
   (2013) 9 sec 54              Relied on          Para 4
   (2014) 1 sec 384             Relied on          Para 4
   2011 (16) SCR 1              Relied on          Para 4
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.             G
4647 of 2009.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 29.11.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 236 of
2001.
                                                                H
    850       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants.

          Ravi Bakshi, Debasis Misra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                       I


B      V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. This civil appeal is directed
  against the judgment and award dated 29th November, 2006
  passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  in FAO No.236 of 2001, wherein the High Court allowed the
  said appeal and enhanced the compensation by RS. 1,20,600/
c - and awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The same
  is questioned by the appellants-claimants, on the ground that
  just and reasonable compensation was not awarded keeping
  in view the future prospects of income and further, correct
  multiplier method was not applied taking into consideration the
0 age of the deceased at the time of death. Lastly, compensation
  under the conventional heads towards loss of love and affection
  towards the widow, children and parents of the deceased was
  also not awarded. Hence, this appeal was filed by the
  appellants seeking further enhancement of compensation.

E         2. The facts in 1brief are stated hereunder:

       On 17.09.1997 Sergeant Dalbir Singh, husband of
  appellant No. 1, father of appellant nos. 2 to 4 and son of
  appellant no. 5 died in a road accident. The accident took place
F at 10.15 p.m. on National Highway No. 28 between Air Force
  Station, Gorakhpur and Nandanagar Police Station, when the
  deceased was going on his bicycle and was hit by truck No.
  UP-41N1901 coming from Gorakhpur side. The said truck was
  driven by Respondent No.1, owned by Respondent No.2 and
G insured by Respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company.
       On 24.11.1997, the appellanUclaimants filed the Claim
  Petition No.217 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims
  Tribunal, Faridabad (in short "the Tribunal") and claimed for RSj
  15,00,000/- as compensation for loss to estate of the
H deceased. The Tribunal held that, the deceased Sergean
     ANJANI SINGH & ORS. v. SALAUDDIN & ORS.               851
               [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
Dalbir Singh died because of the accident which took place         A
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and
awarded the appellants RS. 2,49,600/- as compensation. The
Tribunal determined the dependency of appellants as RS.
31,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 8 since the
deceased suffered death at the age of 35 and the age of            8   1


superannuation in the Air Force is 45-50 years.

       3. Aggr;eved by the judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed First Appeal No. 234 of
2011 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at                Cl
Chandigarh on 12.7.2000. The High Court allowed the appeal
and held that assessment of monthly income by the Tribunal as
4030/- is correct based on the examination of the salary
certificate. The finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of
1/3rd amount towards personal expenses was held to be
erroneous. Hence, this finding was set aside and only 1/4th of     I)
the compensation was deducted towards personal expenses.
The total dependency amount came up to RS. 3,62,700/- by
applying a multiplier of 10 and RS. 2,500/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses and RS. 5,000 towards loss of             ...i
consortium for the widow of the deceased. In total, a              t::i
compensation of RS. 3,70,200/- was awarded. Thus, the
compensation was enhanced by RS. 1,20,600/-, which carried
an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
till the date of payment.

     4. This Court, vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2009,
granted leave, and referred the issue to a larger bench. This
was in view of the divergence of opinion across judgments of
this Court, and this aspect of the matter having not been
considered in the earlier decisions, particularly in the absence   G
of any clarification from Parliament despite recommendations
made by this Court in UP. State Road Transport Corporation
& Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.1, it was further directed to the

1.   (1996) 4 sec 362.                                             H
    852       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 5 S.C.R.

A Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice
  of India for an appropriate order to constitute a larger Bench
  to answer the points referred to it. Pursuant to the said order,
  the matter was placed before a larger Bench which answered
  the points of reference in favour of the appellants, in the decision
B reported in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr2.
  The points answered read as under:

          "40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our
          conclusions as follows:

c         (i) In the applications for compensation made under
          Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age
          of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims
          Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column
          (4) of the table prepared in Sar/a Verma read with para
D         42 of that judgment.

          (ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto .15
          years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A
          under which the claim for compensation has been made,
          multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the
E         Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in
          Column (6) of the table in Sar/a Verma should be followed.

          (iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim
          applications made under Section 166 in death cases
F         where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there
          is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance
          or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988
          Act.
          (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and
G
          guidelines stated in para 19 of Sar/a Verma for
          determination of compensation in cases of death.

          (v) While making addition to income for future prospects,

H   2.   (2013) 9 :sec 65.
     ANJANI SINGH & ORS. v. SALAUDDIN & ORS.                    853
               [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

     the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in         A
     Sar/a Verma.

     (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses
     is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily
     follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and           B
     32 of the judgment in Sar/a Verma subject to the
     observations made by us in para 38 above.

     (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply
     to all pending matters where above aspects are under C
     consideration."

     In view of the above decision of the larger Bench of this
Court, the appellants were held entitled to future prospects of
income considered at the time of determination of
compensation both by the Tribunal and High Court. The monthly D
salary of the deceased was taken as RS. 4030/- by the Tribunal.
The High Court, in view of the answer to the points raised by
this Court and keeping in view the age of the deceased which
was 35 years, has taken 50% of the monthly salary to arrive at
the multiplicand. Therefore, towards future prospects at the rate E
of 50% with monthly income of RS. 4030/- it would come to RS.
2015/-, making the total monthly income to RS. 6045/-. Out of
RS. 6045/-, one fourth i.e. RS. 1511/- shall be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of this
Court in Sar/a Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation F
& Anr. case, as thP deceased has five dependents, thus the .
resultant figure we . j be RS. 4534/- per month which after
multiplying by 12 would come to RS. 54,408/- as annual income.
The multiplier would be 16 as per the above case which would
come to 8,70,528/- under the head of loss of dependency. We G
further award towards funeral expenses, a sum of RS. 25,000/
-, towards loss of love and affection of the children and the
parents, a sum of RS. 1,00,000/- and further, a sum of RS.
1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium by the widow of the
3.   (2009) a sec 121.                                                  H
    854       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A deceased, as per the legal principle laid down by this Court in
  the three judge bench decision in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh
   & Ors4. We also award a sum of RS. 25,0001- for the cost of
  litigation as per the principle laid down by this Court in Bairam
  Prasad v. Kuna/ Saha & Ors5 . Therefore, the amount would
B come to RS. 11,20,5281-. Further, the Tribunal has passed the
  award in the year 2000 and the appellants have received RS,
  3,25,2981- on 22.7.2000 and RS. 1,80,2211- on 9.3.2007. In total
  they have received RS. 5,05,5191-. Now, they are entitled to the
  remaining amount, i.e. RS. 6, 15,0091-. This amount shall bear
c interest at the rate of 9% per annum following the decision of
  this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar
   Tragedy Victims Association & Ors 6 . from the date of
  application till the date of payment. Out of this amount, 50%
  shall be deposited in any nationalized bank of Appellants' choice
o and the remaining amount to be paid to them through demand
  draft within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
  judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no
  order as to costs.
    Devika Gujral                                    Appeal allowed.