ERUDHAYA PRIYAversusSTATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

                          [2020] 5 S.C.R. 299                            299


                        ERUDHAYA PRIYA                                   A
                                  v.
     STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2020)
                           JULY 27, 2020                                 B
          [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI
               AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166 – Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 – r.3(1) – Appellant
                                                                         C
was travelling in a bus owned by the respondent-State Corporation
– The Bus collided with a stationary lorry, which resulted in multiple
injuries to numerous passengers including the appellant – The
injuries to the appellant were grievous – She suffered a disability
of 31.1% of the whole body – The appellant filed a claim petition
u/s. 166 of MV Act r/w. 3(1) of the Rules, 1989 before the Motor         D
Accident Claims Tribunal – The MACT found that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver – The MACT
applied a multiplier of 17 to calculate the loss of earning power –
The total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of
Rs.35,24,288/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. payable by the
                                                                         E
respondent State Corporation – The High Court reduced the
compensation to Rs.25,00,000/- primarily on the ground that the
multiplier method for quantifying loss of earning power was
wrongly applied – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant claimed
enhanced compensation of Rs. 41, 69,831/- under various heads
along with claiming a revised interest rate @12% p.a. – Held: It is      F
settled that in the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to
be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability and same
will apply in the instant case as the age of the appellant was 23
years – Further, while applying the multiplier method, future
prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken
                                                                         G
into consideration – The quantification of the same on the basis
of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Case, considering
the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the
present case – The appellant had watered down the interest rate
during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements – Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the            H
                                 299
300            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple
      interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the
      date of payment.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1. There are three aspects which are required to
B     be examined: the application of multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’;
            2. The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the
      basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment
      in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
      Others. In para 42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench
C     effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as
      mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and
      Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. In the age
      group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with
      factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not
D     really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State
      Corporation and, thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that
      the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to
      be ‘18’ and not ‘17’. [Para 7(a)] [303-G-H; 304-A-C]
            Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent
E           disability of 31.1%
            3. In the factual contours of the present case, if the
      disability certificate is examined, it shows the admission/
      hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over
      1 ½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. [Para 7(b)] [305-
F     A-B]
            4.This Court has also perused the photographs annexed
      to the petition showing the current physical state of the
      appellant, though it is stated by the respondent State Corporation
      that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it
      may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of
G
      injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
      para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case that while applying the
      multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and
      career are also to be taken into consideration. [Para 7(b)] [305-
      D-F]
H
     ERUDHAYA PRIYA v. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT                          301
                CORPORATION LTD.

      5. This Court is thus, unequivocally of the view that there       A
is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid
principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied
in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as
31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the
judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case, more specifically
                                                                        B
para 59.3, considering the age of the appellant, would be 50%
of the actual salary in the present case. [Para 7(b)] [305-F-G]
      The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed
      as 12%
      6. In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered         C
down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in
view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case. On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute
raised by the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in
line with the interest rates applied by this Court. [Para 7(c)] [305-
G-H; 306-A]                                                             D

      Conclusion
       7. The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the
compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application       E
till the date of payment. [Para 8] [306-D-E]
      National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
      and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR
      100 ; Jagdish v. Mohan & Others (2018) 4 SCC
      571 : [2018] 3 SCR 20 ; Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul                   F
      Dande & Another (2017) 3 SCC 351 – relied on.
      Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport
      Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009]
      5 SCR 1098 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference                               G
[2017] 13 SCR 100                 relied on            Para 7
[2009] 5 SCR 1098                 referred to          Para 7
[2018] 3 SCR 20                   relied on            Para 7
(2017) 3 SCC 351                  relied on            Para 7           H
302            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-
      2812 of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2017 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A.(M.D) No. 1221 of 2015 and
      in Cross Objection(MD) No. 37 of 2015.
B           Kushgra Bansal, Gaurav Goel, Ashish Chauhan, Rajesh Kumar,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. M.Karthiga, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C           SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
            1. Leave granted.
             2. On the fateful day of 16.08.2011, the appellant was travelling
      from Chennai to Bangalore in a bus owned by the respondent State
      Corporation bearing registration No. TN-01-N-7531. At about 5.40 a.m.,
D
      while the bus was moving on the Kolar Bangalore National Highway, it
      ran into a stationary lorry. The collision resulted in multiple injuries to
      numerous passengers including the appellant, and caused death of the
      bus conductor on the spot. The appellant was rushed to R.L. Jallappa
      Research & Medical College Hospital, Tamak, Kolar and further
E     treatment was administered at the Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where
      she remained admitted for 8 months. The injuries to the appellant were
      grievous including fractures in the arms and legs and she suffered a
      disability of 31.1% of the whole body.
             3. An FIR was registered in pursuance of investigation naming
F     the driver of the bus as an accused. Chargesheet was filed. But what
      is relevant is that the appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor
      Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”), Madurai under Section 166 of
      the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) read with Rule 3(1) of the
      Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989
      claiming a compensation of Rupees One Crore for injuries sustained in
G     the accident. Evidence was led by both the parties and the MACT, on
      a perusal of the documents and oral testimonies, including the rough
      sketch and the chargesheet, came to the conclusion that the accident
      occurred due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the bus
      driver of the bus owned by the respondent State Corporation and, thus,
H     held the respondent liable to pay compensation to the appellant. In terms
      ERUDHAYA PRIYA v. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT                               303
       CORPORATION LTD. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

of the judgment dated 20.10.2014, the MACT opined that the permanent          A
disability of 31.1% would have to be considered and applied the multiplier
method to calculate the loss of earning power. Since the appellant was
23 years of age, multiplier of 17 was applied on the monthly salary of
the appellant as a software engineer and the compensation was worked
out for loss of earning power to Rs. 9,27,424/. The compensation was
                                                                              B
also attributed under various heads of extra nourishment, medical
expenses, physiotherapy, loss of matrimonial aspects, loss of
comfort and amenities, mental agony, and pain and suffering. The
total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of
Rs. 35,24,288/- payable by the respondent State Corporation along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of          C
realization with costs.
       4. The respondent State Corporation filed an appeal against this
order and the appellant filed cross objections. Both of them were
decided by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.10.2017
by a common order. The High Court, confirming the findings of                 D
negligence of the bus driver, reduced the compensation to Rs. 25,00,000/
- primarily on the ground that the multiplier method for quantifying loss
of earning power has been wrongly applied as it had not come on record
as to how the injuries suffered by the appellant would have a bearing
on her earning capacity as a software engineer. The interest rate was
sustained.                                                                    E

       5. The appellant has claimed before this Court that she is
entitled to enhancement of compensation even over and above what
was granted by the MACT and has quantified the same as
Rs. 41,69,831/- under various heads along with claiming a revised
interest rate @ 12% per annum.                                                F

       6. We heard learned counsels for the parties. They have also
filed short synopses of their respective claims and rebuttals thereof, with
the appellant enlisting the principles which can apply to her case, the
law being now well settled in like cases.
                                                                              G
         7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined
by us:
         (a) the application of multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’;
      The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age
of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National              H
304            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1. In para
      42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed
      the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case
      of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation
      and Another.2. In the age group of 15- 25 years, the multiplier has to
      be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability.
B
            The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel
      for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the
      conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant
      has to be ‘18’ and not ‘17’.

C            (b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent
      disability of 31.1%
            In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed
      compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in
      Jagdish v. Mohan & Others3 and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande
      & Another4. We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish case
D     (supra) in para 8:
            “8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles
            need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or
            temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the
            award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover
E           among others, the following aspects:
                  (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
                 (ii) Loss of income including future income;
                 (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together
F                      with its amenities;
                 (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may
                      be required to undertake in future; and
                 (v) Loss of expectation of life.”
                                                           [emphasis supplied]
G
           The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier
      judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the
      1
        (2017) 16 SCC 680
      2
        (2009) 6 SCC 121
      3
        (2018) 4 SCC 571
H     4
        (2017) 3 SCC 351
      ERUDHAYA PRIYA v. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT                                 305
       CORPORATION LTD. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to           A
quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability
suffered in an accident.
      In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the
disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8
occasions for various number of days over 1 ½ years from August 2011            B
to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under:
       “Nature of injury:
            (i) compound fracture shaft left humerus
            (ii) fracture both bones left forearm
                                                                                C
           (iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm
           (iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
            (v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur
           (vi) fracture shaft left femur                                       D
           (vii) fracture both bones left leg”
      We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition
showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated
by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same
was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position   E
even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent.
Further, it has been opined in para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case
(supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.
       We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the       F
contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to
future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking
the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on
the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra),
more specifically para 59.3, considering the age of the appellant, would
                                                                                G
be 50% of the actual salary in the present case.
       (c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as
12%
       In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the
interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial        H
306                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect,
      once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel
      for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the
      interest rates applied by this Court.
            CONCLUSION
B           8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
      principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out
      in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows:
       HEADS                                                 AMOUNT (INR.)
       LOSS OF EARNING POWER (14648*12*18*31.1/100)          9,81,978.76
C      TOWARDS FUTURE PROSPECTS (50% ADDITION)               4,90,989
       MEDICAL EXPENSES INCLUDING TRANSPORT CHARGES, 18,46,864
       NOURISHMENT ETC.
       LOSS OF MATRIMONIAL ASPECTS                           5,00,000
       LOSS OF COMFORT, AMENITIES AND MENTAL AGONY           1,50,000
D      PAIN AND SUFFERING                                    2,00,000
       TOTAL                                                 41,69,831

            The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs.
      41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per
      annum from the date of application till the date of payment.
E           9. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed with costs throughout.
             10. The balance amount be transmitted by the respondent State
      Corporation to the appellant within a maximum period of six weeks from
      today.

F
      Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals allowed.




G




H