Holding

The Supreme Court held that compensation must be assessed on a liberal basis using the actual family expenditure, a 70‑year life expectancy (multiplier 24), without any lump‑sum deduction, and with interest at 12% per annum, resulting in total damages of Rs.4,18,200.

Summary

The widow of Major Dalip Singh and his two minor sons filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after a bus collided with their car, killing the Major and injuring the children. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the assumption that the deceased spent half his salary on personal expenses, used a life expectancy of 56 years for an army officer, and deducted one‑third of the assessed amount for a lump‑sum payment, also granting interest at 6% per annum. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s assumptions were unfounded, noting that the family expenditure was Rs.1,400 per month, the appropriate life expectancy should be 70 years (yielding a multiplier of 24), and no deduction for lump‑sum payment is justified; it also increased the interest rate to 12% and raised the compensation for the children. Consequently, the Court modified the award to Rs.4,03,200 for loss of earnings, Rs.10,000 and Rs.5,000 for the two sons, and interest at 12%, totaling Rs.4,18,200, and allowed the appeal with costs.

Issues considered

The correctness of the Tribunal's finding that the deceased spent half his salary on personal expenses
The appropriate life expectancy multiplier for an army officer in calculating loss of earnings
Whether a one‑third deduction for lump‑sum payment should be applied to the assessed compensation
The entitlement to loss of consortium compensation for the widow and children
The adequacy of compensation awarded to the minor children for their injuries
The appropriate rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 110, s. 110-B

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actcompensationaccident claimlife expectancyloss of consortiuminterest ratelump sum deductionarmy officerquantification of damagesmotor accident claims tribunal

Judgment

A HARDEO KAUR AND ORS.
v.
RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.

MARCH 13, 1992
r
B (KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

Sections 110 and 110-B-Accident claim-A ward of compensa-
c tion-Criteria for-Detennination of-Adoption of Liberal approach-Need
...(.
for.

The first appellant, her husband-a young Army Officer of 36 years·
and their two minor sons were injured in a road accident when the .)iii.
'I'-.
repondent-State Road Transport Corporation's bus struck against the car
D in which they were travelling. While the appellant's husband succumbed
to the injuries, one of the sons received multiple injuries and another
received injury on the forehead and multiple abrasions on various parts
of the body. The first appellant, however, received minor injuries.

The first appellant; her two minor sons and daughter filed a claim
E petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal found
that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus
by the driver. Regarding quantum of compensation, it held that the
,...
deceased was spending half of his salary on his personal needs, that the
normal life expectancy of the deceased, who was 36 years of age when the
F mishap occurred, was 20 years sine~ the normal life span of an army
Officer \VaS 56 years and, therefore, a compensation of Rs. 2,64,000 should
be awarded for the loss of the deceased's life, and that after deduction of
-i
1/3 on account of lumpsum payment, an amount of Rs. 1,76,000 should be
paid as damages to heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal also aw~rded Rs. -4
3,000 ~nd Rs. 1,000 respectively to the two sons. It further awarded interest
G at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application before the
Tribunal till the ·date of realisation. The widow a:od her children filed
appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compen~ation but the
same was dismissed.
~
H In the appeal, by special leave, bef0re this Court on behalf of the
272
, HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTIIAN S.T.C. 273
'
widow, and her minor children, it was contended that the finding of the A
Courts below that the deceased, being an army officer used to spend one
half of his salary on personal expenditure, was grossly erroneous and
based on mere surmises and conjectures, that it was specifically pleaded
before the Tribunal that the deceased used to spend nearly Rs. 1,400 per
month on his family, which was solely dependent upon him, that there was B
no basis to take the life span of an army officer to be 56 years, and it should
be taken to be 70 years in the modern environments, that the deduction of
1/3rd assessed compensation on account of lumpsum payment was wholly
unjustified, that the compensation awarded to the minor children was on
the lower side and that no compensation was awarded for loss of consor-
tium to wife and the minor children. C
Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1.1 There was no basis or justification before the Tribunal
to have reached the finding that the deceased was spending half of the
salary on himself. On the other hand, it was specifically claimed by the D
appellants that he was spending nearly Rs. 1,400 per month to support his
family. It is common knowledge that personal needs of army officers
including drinks are supplied to them at a subsidised price through the
Army canteens. Therefore, the finding of the courts below is set aside. The
deceased was spending Rs. 1,400 per month on his family. [2778-C] E

1.2 The span of life should be taken to be 70 years in view of the
high rise in life expectancy. It is specially so in the case of Army officers
who are disciplined to live an active and energetic life. The courts below
were, therefore, not justified in taking the normal span of life to be 60 years
and that of an Army officer 56 years. [277D] F
Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ 172, applied.

1.3 The deduction of l/3rd out of the assessed compensation on
account of lumpsum payment is not justified. The accident took place in
July, 1977 and ~he litigation has come to an end, 15 years thereafter. The G
delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all
other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation
and added to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the
value of rupee makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than
quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. With the H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A value of rupee dwindling, due to high rate of inflat;uD.,.there is no justifica-
tion for making deduction due to lumpsum payment. Therefore, the courts
below were not justified in making lumpsum deduction in this case.
[277E-F, G]

Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd v. J.K Modi, (1981) ACJ 507;
B Manju Shri Raha v. B.L Gupta, (1977) ACJ 134 and India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Ninnla Devi, (1980) ACJ 55, relied on.

1.4. The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is time
bound consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart from that there
C have been upward revisions in the pay-scales of Army personnel. No
compensation was awarded for the loss of consortium to the wife and
children. Even the life expectancy was taken to be as low as 56. Considering
all these circumstances a multiplier of 24 would meet the ends of justice.
[278B·C]

D 1.5. Thus, the annual amount which the deceased was spending for
his family comes to Rs.16,800 (Rs. 1400 x 12) which multiplied by 24 comes
to Rs.4,03.,200. Therefore, the amount of damages to be allowed to the
appellant-claimants is assessed at Rs. 4,03,200. [278D]

E 1.6. The Tribunal was right in holding that the injuries on the
person of th'i' first appellant were not such as to entitle her to claim ~
compensation. However, the compensation awarded to the young boys is ,.....
on the lower side. It should be Rs. 10,000 in the case or first son and Rs.
5,000 in the case of second son. [278E]
F
1.7. In the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to a total sum
of Rs. 4,18,200 as damages on account of the death of the first appellant's
husband and injuries received by the two sons. They are also entitled to
claim interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal from
the date of the application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation.
G Both the opposite parties are jointly and severely responsible to pay- the
decretal amount. [278G-H, 279A]

Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1985) ACJ 645 and
Jagbir Singh and Others v-:-General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Others,
H (1987) ACJ 15, relied on.
HARDEO KAU,R v. RAJAS1HAN S.T.C. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 275

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2259 of A
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.1988 of the Allahabad High
Court .in F.A.F.O. No. 309 of 1980.

~
Praveen Kumar for the Appellants. B
~ Yogeshwar Prasad and Sushil Kumar Jain for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
- ~ KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. c
Major Dalip Singh, alongwith his wife Hardeo Kaur and his two sons
~ Jasminder Singh (10 years) and Balvinder Singh (7 years), was travelling in
his Ambassador car from Mathura to Delhi on July 30, 1977. A Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation's bus driven by Ramesh Chandra Shar-
ma struck against the Ambassador car driven by Major Dalip Singh. Major D
Dalip Singh, his wife and sons were injured in the accident. Unfortunately
Major Dalip Singh succumbed to the injuries. Master Jasvinder Singh
received multiple injuries including fracture of nasal bone. His younger
brother Balvinder Singh received injury on the forehead and multiple
I' abrasions on various parts of the body. Hardeo Kaur, however, received
E
minor injuries. A claim petition was filed by Hardeo Kaur, her two minor
~ sons and daughter Davendra Kaur (6 years) before the Mofor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Mathura. The Tribunal by its judgment dated January 29,
1980 found on the basis of the evidence adduced before it that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver
Ramesh Chandra Sharma. Regarding quantum and assessment of compen- F
sation the Tribunal held as under :
J--

•A "In the present case the evidence shows that Major Dalip Singh
was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2200. He died leaving a

-
..,,
wife and three minor children. Normally it is to be presumed
that the deceased was spending 1/3rd of his salary on personal G
expenses. In the present case the deceased was an Army
Officer. Experience shows that the personal expenses of Army
)- Officers are more than the other Civil servants specially be-
cause they have to spend some amount on mess expenses and
on drinks etc. Evidence also shows that Major Dalip Singh H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A occasionally used to take drinks, though moderately. In view of
all these facts I am of the opinion that it must be held that
Major Dalip Singh was spending half of his salary on personal
expenditure while the remaining half was spent on his family.
He was aged 36 at the time when this occurrence took place.
The normal span of life is taken as 60 years, but in my opinion
B in the case of army officers this span should be taken as 56
years. Army officers are also retired about 4 years earlier than
civil government servants. Thus the normal expectancy of life
of Major Dalip Singh was (56-36) 20 years. Thus the annual
amount which Major Dalip Singh was spending for his family
c cumes to Rs. 1100x12 = 13,200.00 which multiplied by 20, which
was the average expectancy of life in his case, amounts to Rs.
2,64,000. Out of this, deduction of 1/3rd should be made on
account of lumpsum payment. The balance amounts to Rs.
1,76,000 which should be the amount of damages to be allowed
to the heirs of deceased Major Dalip Singh."
D
So far as Jasminder Singh and Balvinder Singh are concerned the
Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. the Tribunal thus
awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 as damages on account of the death of
Major Dalip Singh and injuries received by his minor sons. The Tribunal
E further awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date
of application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. Hardeo Kaur
and her children filed appeal before the High Court for enhancement of
compensation but the same was dismissed on March 2, 1988. Hence this
appeal. by the widow and her minor children.
F
The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the courts
below have grossly erred in reaching a finding that the late Major Dalip
Singh being an army officer used to spend one half of his salary on personal
expenditure. According to him the finding is based on mere surmises and
G conjectures. He has stated that it was specifically pleaded before the
Tribunal that Major Dalip Singh used to spend nearly 1400 per month on
his family which was solely dependent upon him. The learned counsel has
also argued that there was no basis to take the life span of an army officer
to be 56 years. According to him the life span should be taken to be 70
years in the modern environments. The learned counsel ha~ contended that
H the deduction of 1/3rd assessed compensation on account of lumpsum
HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTIIAN S.T.C. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 277

payment is wholly unjustified. He further contended that the compensation A
it .. awarded to the minor children is on the lower side and no compensation
was awarded for loss of consortium to wife and the minor children.

We see considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants. There was no basis or justification before the Tribunal
to have reached the finding that Major Dalip Singh was spending !:. ' B
the salary on himself. On the other hand it was specifically claimed by the
appellants that he was spending nearly 1400 per month to support his
family. It is common knowledge that personal needs of army officers
including drinks are supplied to them at a subsidised price through the
Army canteens. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the courts below C
and hold that late Major Dalip Singh was spending Rs. 1400 per month on
his family.

This Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ 172 has
observed that the span of life should be taken to be 70 years in view of the D
high rise in life expectancy. It is specially so in the case of Army officers
who are disciplined to live an active and energetic life. The courts below
were not justified in taking the normal span of life to be 60 years and that

- of an Army officer 56 years.

We ·are of the view that deduction of l/3rd out of the assessed E
compensation on account of lump-sum payment is not justified. The acci-
dent took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end,
hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This court in Motor Owners Insurance
Company Ltd. v. J.K Modi, {1981) ACJ 507 held that the delay in the final

.,
disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of
F
litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation and added to that
: the monstrous inflation and the c:onsequent fall in the value of rupee makes
..
the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its value when
it is received after such a long time. In Manju Shri Raha v. B.L. Gupta,
(1977) ACJ 134 this Court awarded compensation by multiplying the life
expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwin- G
dling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making
deduction due to lump-sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts
below were not justified in making lump-sum deduction in this case.

This Court in India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ninnla Devi, (1980) ACJ H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.

A 55 held as under :

"The determination of the, quant~ must be liberal, not nig-
gardly since the law values life and limb in free country in
generous scales."

B The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is time-bound
consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart from that there have been
upward revisions in the pay-scales of Army personnel. No compensation
was awarded for the loss of consortium.to.the wife and chilch:en. Even the
life expectancy. was taken to be as low as 56. Considering all these cir-
C cumstances we are of the view that a multiplier of 24 would meet the ends
of justice.

Thus the annual amount which Major Dalip Singh was spending for
his family comes to Rs. 16,800 (Rs. 1400x12) which multiplied by 24 comes
D to Rs. 4,03,200. We, therefore, assess the amount of damages to be ~owed ....
to the appellant-claimants at Rs. 4,03,200.

We agree with the tribunal that the injuries on the person of Hardeo
Kaur were not such as to entitle her to claim compensation. The compen-
sation awarded to the young boys, according to us, is on the lower side.
E We assess Rs. 10,000 in the case of Jasminder Singh and Rs. 5000 in the
case of Balwinder Singh.

The tribunal has awarded interest @. 6% p.a. from the date of filing
of the application before the tribunal till the date of realisation. In
Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1985) ACJ 645 this Court
F
awarded interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application. Similarly in
Jagbir Singh and Others v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and Others,
(1987) ACJ 15, this Court enhanced the interest from 6% p.a. to 12% p.a.
We, therefore, hold that apart from the damages the appellants are entitled
to claim interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the tribunal.
G
In view of the above discussion the claimants are entitled to a total
· sum of Rs. 4,18,200 as damages on account of the death of Major Dalip
Singh and injuries received by Jasminder Singh and Balwinder Singh. The
appellants are also entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. from Septembe~
H 3, 1977, the date of the application before the tribunal till the date of
HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTIIAN S.T.C. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 279

realisation. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severely responsible A
to pay the decretal amount.

The judgments of the tribunal and of the fligh Court are modified
and the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above with costs which
are assessed at Rs. 5,000.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.

-
-t

-