Supreme Court of India
MOHAN SINGHversusKASHI BAI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 30
- Decided
- 13 January 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court correctly applied the multiplier of 17, as guided by the Second Schedule, and declined to interfere.
Summary
The case arose from a motor accident on 21 November 1999 in which a jeep driven by Mohan Singh collided with a truck, resulting in the deaths of three persons. The victims' heirs filed claims for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation using multipliers of 10, 15 and 12 based on the ages of the deceased. The Madhya Pradesh High Court altered the awards by applying a uniform multiplier of 17 to all three claims, a decision challenged before the Supreme Court. The principal issue was whether the multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule (intended for claims under Section 163A) could be applied in a Section 166 proceeding and whether a multiplier of 17 was appropriate for deceased aged between 30 and 35 years. The Court held that the Second Schedule, although technically for Section 163A, provides a valid guideline for Section 166 cases and that the High Court correctly applied the multiplier of 17. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be applied in compensation determinations under Section 166.
- Whether a multiplier of 17 is the correct factor for deceased persons aged above 30 but not exceeding 35 years.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 163A, s. 166, s. 168
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActCompensationMultiplierSection 166Second ScheduleMotor accidentEnhancement of compensationContributory negligence
Judgment
[2009] t S.C.R. 277
MOHAN SINGH A
>
v.
KASHI BAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2009)
JANUARY 13, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
• "1-
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
S. 166 - Compensation claimed for death of a person due c
to motor vehicles accident - Award of compensation - On
appeal for enhancement, Held: Multiplier adopted by High
·Court is correct - No interference called for.
In the present appeal, filed against the judgment of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, appellant D
claims enhancement of compensation awarded in a
Motor Accident case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. Although the Second Schedule is
applicable only in respect of the claim petitions filed under
Section 163A of the Act, indisputably, the same provides
for some guidelines. In a case where the deceased was .
above 25 years but not exceeding 30 years, in terms of
F
the said Second Schedule, the multiplier of 18 is to be
applied. In the case of the deceased whose age was
above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplier
of 17 in terms of the Second Schedule is required to be
applied. The High Court, therefore, has applied the
correct multiplier. The quantum of multiplicand, is not in G
question. In a case of this nature, it is not necessary to
go into the larger question, viz., as to whether the courts
should apply the multiplier specified in the Second
277 H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Schedule in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act. " .
[Para 11] [282-C-E]
1.2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that the judgment of the High Court in applying the
8
multiplier of 17 need not be interfered with. [Para 13] [288-
B]
....
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and others,
C (1994) 2 SCC 176; Kaushnuma Begum v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9; United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281; Jyoti
Kaul v. State of M.P., (2002) 6 SCC 306; Smt. Supe Dei &
Ors. v. Mis. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. JT 2002
D (Suppl.1) SC 451; Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India and Another (2003) 3 SCC 148;
Kanhaiya/al Kataria and Others v. Mukul Chaturvedi and
Others (2005) 12 SCC 190 and Bi/kish v. United India
Insurance Company Limited and Another (2008) 4 SCC 259,
E relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 176 relied on Para 12
(2001) 2 sec 9 relied on Para 12
F
(2002) 6 sec 281 relied on Para 12
(2002) 6 sec 306 relied on Para 12
JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451 relled on Para 12
G
(2003) 3 sec 148 relied on Para 12
(2005) 12 sec 190 relied on Para 12
(2008) 4 sec 259 relied on Para 12
H
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS. 279
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 105 A
~
of 2009.
From the Judgment and final order dated 13/7/2005 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur in Misc.
Appeal No. 1620/03, 1621/03, 1622/03. B
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Apellants.
Umesh Babu Chaurasia and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant before us is the driver and owner of the jeep
bearing registration No. MP-04J 1824 which met with an D
accident on 21.11.1999 having, collided with a truck. The
deceased Baima @ Bairam Gond, Ramgopal and Shankarlal
admittedly were travelling in the said vehicle.
3. A First Information Report was lodged. The heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased filed applications for E
grant of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 {for short "the Act") which was marked as
Claim Case Nos. 76, 78 and 79 of 2002 ...
4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the ·rival F
contentions of the parties, framed the following issues:
"1. Whether on 21.11.99 in the night at about 8 a.m. near
village Semri, non applicant No. 1 driving Jeep No. MP04
1824 and truck No. MP04K2028 driven negligently and
G
rashly the collision between the two vehicle occurred and
in the result Shankarlal died.
2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part
of both the drivers? If so, effect.
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A 3. At 8 p.m. Jeep No. MP04J1824 was dashed by truck
No. MP04 K 2028 and the accident was caused, if so,
effect..
4. Whether applicants are entitled for compensation.
B 5. Relief & Cost."
5. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the
depositions of the witnesses held that neither the truck No.
MP04K 2028 was involved in the accident, nor was it caused
c on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver.
The learned Tribunal passed awards in all the three cases as
under:
Claim Case No. 76 of 2002 Rs. 1,32,000/-
D Claim Case No. 78 of 2002 Rs. 1,92,000/-
Claim Case No. 79 of 2002 Rs. 4,22,400/-
6. Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the appellant.
E By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however,
reversed the said findings, holding:
"16. Coming to question of negligence, though
Mohan Singh and two other witnesses examined by the
claimant has stated that it was the truck driver who drove
F it in rash and negligent manner. However, in the claim
petition, it was rightly mentioned that jeep driver also drove
it in rash and negligent manner and the accident took place
when two vehicles dashed against each other. Both were
coming from opposite direction, thus, it was the duty of both
G the drivers to avoid the collision in which they have failed.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that it is a case of
contributory negligence in equal proportion of both drivers."
Although we are of the opinion that the High Court in doing
so should have considered the matter at some details and it
H
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 281
;,. was further required to assign some reasons in support thereof, A
but, it is not necessary for us to consider that aspect of the
matte; as the owner or the insurer of the truck having not
preferred any appeal, the same has attained finality.
In this appeal we are concerned with only one question, B
viz., as to whether any case has been made out for
enhancement of the amount of compensation in favour of the
.._, appellant.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the age of the c
deceased Shankarlal was 35 years. His monthly income was
assessed at Rs. 1500/ - per month. One-third of the said
amount was deducted as his personal expenditure. Applying
the multiplier of 10, it was held that the applicants were entitled
to compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. D
As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the
heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Baima is
concerned, the loss of dependency was determined at Rs.
12,000/ - per annum by the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact E
that he was aged 25 years, the multiplier of 15 was used to
hold that a compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/ - should
be granted.
The deceased Ram Gopal was aged 31 years at the time
of the accident. A multiplier of 12 was used in his case and F
the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,22,400/ - was held to be
payable to him on the premise that the loss of dependency was
Rs. 34,200/ - per annum.
8. The High Court, however, although did not interfere with. G
these finding of facts, applied the multiplier of 17 in all the cases.
~
9. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would contend that the High Court
committed a serious error in holding that the multiplier of 17
H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A should be applied in modification of the order of the Tribunal.
10. The liability to pay compensation in a case where a
vehicle meets with an accident is principally that of the owner
thereof. The age of the deceased as also the loss of
8 dependency suffered by his heirs respectively and legal
representatives is seriously not in dispute.
11. The core question, therefore, which arises for
consideration is as to whether the multiplier specified in the
table contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act
C should have been applied. Although the Second Schedule is
applicable only in respect of the claim petitions filed under
Section 163A of the Act, indisputably, the same provides for
some guidelines. In a case where the deceased was above
25 years but not exceeding 30 years, in terms of the said
D Second Schedule, the multiplier of 18 is to be applied. In the
case of the deceased whose age was above 30 years but not
exceeding 35 years, the multiplier of 17 in terms of the Second
Schedule is required to be applied. The High Court, therefore,
in our opinion, has applied the correct multiplier. The quantum
E of multiplicand, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question. In
a case of this nature, it is not necessary to go into the larger
question, viz., as to whether the courts should apply the
multiplier specified in the Second Schedule in a proceeding
under Section 166 of the Act.
F
12. In General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and others,
[(1994) 2 sec 176] apart from applying the structured formula
for determination of the amount of compensation with regard
to the future prospect of the deceased, it was opined:-
G
"19. In the present case the deceased was 39 years of
age. His income was Rs 1032 per month. Of course, the
future prospects of advancement in life and career should
also be sounded in terms of money to augment the
H multiplicand. While the chance of the multiplier is
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.J 283
determined by two factors, namely, the ratf:) of interest A
,>.·
appropriate to a stable economy and the age of the
deceased or of the claimant whichever is higher, the
ascertainment of the multiplicand is a more difficult
exercise. Indeed, many factors have to be put into the
scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future. All B
contingencies of the future need not necessarily be baneful.
.'·
'
The deceased person in this case had a more or less
stable job. It will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably
"" liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating
the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the c
loss of dependency on the present actual income of Rs
1032 per month. We think, having regard to the prospects
of advancement in the future career, respecting which there
is evidence on record, we will not be in error in making a
higher estimate of monthly income at Rs 2000 as the gross
D
income. From this has to be deducted his personal living
expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various
factors such as whether the style of living was spartan or
bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to
deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal
E
living expenses and treat the balance as the amount likely
to have been spent on the members of the family and the
dependents. This loss of dependency ~ould capitalize
with the appropriate multiplier. In the present case we can
take about Rs 1400 per month or Rs 17,000 per year as
the loss of dependency and if capitalized on a multiplier F
of 12, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased,
the compensation would work out to (Rs 17,000 x 12 =Rs
2,03,000) to which is added the usual award for loss of
consortium and loss of the estate each in the conventional
sum of Rs 15,000." G
-- In Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
[(2001) 2 SCC 9] this Court observed:-
22. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs 2,36,000. But PW
H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A 1 widow of the deceased said that her husband's income
was Rs 1500 per month. PW 4 brother of the deceased
...
also supported the same version. No contra-evidence has
been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is, therefore,
reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the
B deceased was Rs. 1500. In calculating the amount of
compensation in this case we lean ourselves to adopt the
structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the
MV Act. Though it was formulated for the purpose of
Section 163-A of the MV Act, we find it a safer guidance
c for arriving at the amount of compensation than any other
method so far as the present case is concerned."
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean
Mahajan, [. (2002) 6 SCC 281 ], however, this Court held : -
D "21. The purpose to compensate the dependants of the
victims is that they may not be suddenly deprived of the
source of their maintenance and as far as possible they
may be provided with the means as were available to them
before the accident took place. It will be a just and fair
E compensation. But in cases where the amount of
compensation may go much higher than the amount
providing the same amenities, comforts and facilities and
also the way of life, in such circumstances also it may be
a case where, while applying the multiplier system, the
F lesser multiplier may be applied. In such cases, the amount
of multiplicand becomes relevant. The intention is not to
overcompensate.
22. We therefore, hold that ordinarily while awarding
compensation, the provisions contained in the Second
G Schedule may be taken as a guide including the multiplier,
H
but there may arise some cases, as the one in hand, which
may fall in the category having special features or facts
calling for deviation from the multiplier usually applicable."
It is evident from the above that this Court in the said
--
I~
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 285
decisions had taken a departure from the Second Schedule. A
In Jyoti Kaul v. State of M.P., [ (2002) 6 SCC 306 ]
multiplier of 15 was adopted, stating : -
"The aforesaid decision makes it clear that the principle B
of multiplier would depend on the facts and circumstances
... of each case. Looking to the facts of this case we find that
the Tribunal has given good reasons for applying the
multiplier of 15. This was in addition of taking into
consideration that the predecessors of the deceased all c
lived for more than 80 years. The High Court reduced the
multiplier from 15 to 10 without taking into consideration
circumstances considered by the Tribunal and thus
- -1--
committed the error. We, accordingly, set aside the
findings of the High Court only to the extent of the
application of multiplier and uphold other findings including
reduction of interest. The present appeal, accordingly,
D
succeeds in part. The computation of compensation now
shall be made on the basis of multiplier of 15. The
difference of enhanced amount which has yet not been E
paid by the respondent State shall be paid to the
claimants within a period of three months from today."
In Smt. Supe Dei & Ors. v. Mis. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Anr. [JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451], this Court held:
F
" ... While considering the question of just compensation
payable in a case all relevant factors including the
appropriate multiplier are to be kept in mind. The position
is well settled that the second schedule under Section
163A to the Act which gives the amount of compensation G
to be determined for the purpose of claim under the
.... section can be taken as a guideline while determining the
compensation under Section 166 of the Act. In that view
of the matter, there is no reason why multiplier of 17 should
not be taken as the appropriate multiplier in the case." H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological
Survey of India and Another [(2003) 3 SCC 148), this Court
held:
"11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the
payment of compensation on the basis of structured
B
formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should
not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of
the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166
thereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as
c has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in
exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of
compensation should be just and fair in the facts and
circumstances of each case.
D 12. The victim at the relevant time was 40 years of
age. The Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, cannot be
said to have committed an error in applying the multiplier
-
of 15. The only question which is required to be considered
now is as to how the multiplicand should be arrived at.
E 13. The deceased at the time of accident was a
young man. He had a stable job. A reasonably liberal view
of his future prospects should have, therefore, been taken
into consideration by the High Court as well as by the
Tribunal.
F
14. Having regard to the prospects and
advancement of the future career, a higher estimate of the
yearly income at Rs.45,000 would not be out of place. From
the said amount, one-third of the gross income towards
G personal living expenses should be deducted. The amount
of Rs 30,000 should thus be determined as the loss of
dependency. The said sum should be capitalized by
applying the multiplier of 15, which comes to Rs 4,50,000."
In Kanhaiyalal Kataria and Others v. Mukul Chaturvedi
H
1"'
. "'I
MOHAN SINGH v. KASHI BAI & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 287
and Others ((2005) 12SCC190], this Court held: A
.,..
"3. Learned counsel for the claimants made
submissions seeking enhancement of compensation on
the ground that the income of the deceased has not been
properly estimated. We are not going into any other aspect
except the question of proper multiplier for computation of B
compensation. In our opinion, by taking the multiplier of 17,
the amount of compensation deserves to be increased. The
compensation amount may be suitably recomputed by the
Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 17 and interest at the
rate of 12 per cent per annum on the increased amount be c
also granted."
In Bilkish v. United India Insurance Company Limited and
Another [(2008) 4 SCC 259], this Court held:
D
"4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and
the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor
and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total
income for personal use ar.d rest of the amount earned by
him would certainly go to the family kitty. The'refore, E
determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not
correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending
1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his
income to his family. Therefore, we work out that Rs 30,000
was earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency F
was 2/3rd i.e. Rs 20,000. The multiplier of '11' applied for
loss of dependency was also not correct and as per
Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it
should be '12'. Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss
of dependency will be Rs 20,000 x 12 =Rs 2,40,000 and G
Rs 10,000 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses,
• -y the total compensation comes to Rs 2,50,000 and
incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date
of the petition. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid
H
r..
\
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A modification."
13. We, therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion
that the judgment of the High Court in applying the multiplier of
17 need not be interfered with.
8
14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
c
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
iii
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search