FAKEERAPPA AND ANR.versusKARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY AND ORS.

                     FAKEERAPPA AND ANR.                                          A
                              v.
             KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY AND ORS.

                              FEBRUARY 13, 2004

              [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]                           B


           Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Death caused-
    Compensation--Claim for-Award by Tribunal using multiplier of 18, deducting
    50% of income as personal expenditure with 6% interest rate-Appeal for C
    enhancement dismissed by High Court-Appeal questioning percentage of
    deduction and rate of interest-Insurer questioned the multiplier-Held:
    Deduction ofpersonal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigidformula-

-   In facts of the case the deduction restricted to one third of income-Since the
    questions of interest rate and multiplier not raised before High Court, the
    same not liable to be interfered with-Practice and Procedure.                  D
          Appellants 1 and 2-parents of the deceased filed claim petition for
    compensation after death of their 27 years old son in a vehicular accident.
    Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded compensation using multiplier
    of 18, after deducting 50% of the income for personal expenses, with 6%
    interest rate. Appeal for enhancement of the compensation, was dismissed      E
    by High Court.

          In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that deduction pf 50%
    of the income and 6% rate of interest were not justified.

         Respondent contended that there was no rigid formula for quantum         F
    of deduction; that as the rate of interest was not challenged before High
    Court, the same could not be challenged for the first time before Supreme
    Court; and that multiplier of 18 was on the higher side.

         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                  G
          HELD: 1. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal
    expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal
    application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. Taking into
    account special features of the case, it would be appropriate to restrict

                                       369                                        H
    370                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A   the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income.
                                                                    1371-GI

          2. Since there was no question raised about the correctness of the
    rate of interest before the High Court. There is no scope for interference       <
    with the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any
B   challenge to it before the High Court. 1372-A)

          3. Though the multiplier adopted appears to be slightly on the higher
    side, the plea taken by the insurer cannot be accepted as there was no
    challenge by the insurer to the fixation of the multiplier before the High
C   Court and even in the appeal filed by the appellants before the High Court
    the plea was not taken. 1371-HJ

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 009 of
    2004.

D        From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.2002 of the Kamatka High
    Court in M.F.A.No. 2645 of 2001 MVC.

            Ms. Kiran Suri for the Appellants.

         Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, P.P. Singh (NP) and Debasis
E   Misra (NP) for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                     -~.
            ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

          Appellants were the parents of one Yallappa Angadi (hereinafter referred
F   to as 'deceased') who died in a vehicular accident. The appellant No. I filed
    a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') in
    the Court ofFirst Additional District Judge and M.A. C.T., Dharwad (in short
    the 'Tribunal') claiming compensation. In the Claim Petition the appellant
    No. 2 herein, i.e. the mother of the deceased was added as a formal party-
G   respondent No. 5. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged 27 years
    at the time of accident. It accepted that the deceased was getting Rs.2000
    p.m. On that basis to work out loss of dependency multiplier of I 8 was
    adopted after deducting 50% of the income for personal expenses. A total
    sum of Rupees two lakhs with 6% interest per annum from the date of
    application was awarded as compensation.
                                                                                     ·-
H
-           FAKEERAPPA v. KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY [PASAYAT, J]

          An appeal was preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Act
    praying for an increase of the compensation: The High Court by the impugned
                                                                               37]

                                                                                       A

    judgment found no merit and dismissed the same.

           In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
    that two points fall for adjudication. Firstly, whether the deduction of half of


-   the monthly income for personal expenditure is justified, and secondly whether
    the award of 6% interest per annum is justified.
                                                                                       B

          Though the respondents have been served notice, only counter affidavit
    has been filed by respondent No.2-0riental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter
    referred to as the 'insurer').
                                                                                       c
          Learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that there cannot be
    any rigid formula as to what would be the percent:ige or quantum of deduction.
    The Tribunal and the High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects to
    hold that 50% deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any
    interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the        D
    High Court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the
    Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this Court such a grievance
    cannot be raised. It is also submitted that multiplier of 18 as adopted is on
    the higher side.



-         What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure
    cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula ofuniversal application. It
    would depend upon circumstances of each case .. The deceased undisputedly
    was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution
                                                                                       E



    to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view
    the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction.
                                                                                       F
           It has to be noted that the ages of the parents as disclosed in the Claim
    Petition were totally unbelievable. If the deceased was aged about 27 years
    as found at the time of post mortem and about which there is no dispute, the
    father and mother could not have been aged 38 years and 35 years respectively
    as claimed by them in the Claim Petition. Be that as it may, taking into           G
    account special features of the case we feel it would be appropriate to restrict
    the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income.
    Though the multiplier adopted appears to be slightly on the higher side, the
    plea taken by the insurer cannot be accepted as there was no challenge by the
    insurer to the fixation of the multiplier before the High Court and even in the
                                                                                       H
A
    372                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2004] 2 S.C.R.

    appeal filed by the appellants before the High Court the plea was not taken.     -
           Since there was no question raised about the correctness of the rate of
    interest before the High Court, we do not find any scope for interference with
    the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any challenge to
    it before the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above,
B   with no order as to costs.

         Before we part with the case we think it necessary to point out a
  somewhat shocking state of affairs which came to our notice. In the Claim
                                                                                     ---
  Petition filed before the Tribunal, this Court and the High Court of Kamataka,
  Bangalore were impleaded as respondents for no sensible reason, and in
C gross abuse of process of law, though by hindsight absurdity seems to have
  been set right by ordering deletion. Though these parties were given up
  during adjudication, it is clear that the Claim Petition was filed without any
  application of mind by the counsel concerned as to who would be proper or
  necessary party or even a formal party and great sense of responsibility is
D expected to be exhibited by those concerned. At least while impleading        a
  party in Claim Petition, proper attention ought to be devoted which sadly was
  not done.

    K.K.T.                                              Appeals partly allowed.



                                                                                     ---

                                                                                     -