Supreme Court of India
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusDEO PATODI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 798
- Decided
- 12 May 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Court held that the deceased's monthly income should be Rs 25,000, one‑third of his UK earnings, with a one‑third deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 10, thereby allowing the claimants' appeal and dismissing the insurer's.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the parents of Deepak Patodi, a 22‑year‑old brilliant student who died in a road accident. Patodi earned Rs 80,000 per month from a part‑time job in the UK and had a prospective US job offering Rs 18 lakhs per annum, but the accident occurred before he could join. The Tribunal had fixed his monthly income at Rs 18,000, deducted one‑third for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 13, while the High Court increased the dependency factor to two‑thirds and awarded medical expenses. The Supreme Court held that the appropriate monthly income should be Rs 25,000 (one‑third of his UK earnings), that one‑third of income may be deducted for personal expenses, and that a multiplier of 10 is suitable given the parents' ages. Consequently, the claimants' appeal was allowed and the insurer's cross‑appeal dismissed, with a direction to recompute the award accordingly.
Issues considered
- The correct method to determine the multiplicand (monthly income) for loss of dependency when the deceased was a student with part‑time earnings and a future overseas job offer.
- Whether the parents' dependency should be measured at one‑third or two‑thirds of the deceased's income.
- Whether the multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act applies automatically in Section 166 cases.
- Whether medical expenses incurred for treatment should be awarded.
- The appropriate percentage of the deceased's income to be deducted for personal expenses.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActSection 166loss of dependencycompensationmultipliermultiplicandpersonal expense deductionstudentfuture earningsinsurance claim
Judgment
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 791
->
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A
v.
DEO PATODI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3482 of 2009)
MAY, 12 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
•
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident of a
22 year old student having brilliant career - Claim for
compensation by his parents - Tribunal awarding c
compensation estimating his monthly income at Rs. 18, 0001
Dependency of parents calculated at 113 of his income -
Cross appeals - High court maintaining estimated income,
while holding the dependency as 213 of the income - On
appeal, held: Income of the deceased should have been D
estimated at Rs. 25, 0001- pm - Deduction of 113 of the income
justified.
Respondents-claimants filed a petition uls. 166 of
Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for the death of their 22 year old
~
..... E
son in a motor accident. They made a claim of Rs. 75
lakhs compensation on the premise that while he was
doing his studies in U.K., he was earning Rs. 80,0001- per
• month in a part time job. After competition of his studies,
he got an offer in a U.S. Based company at an annual
salary of Rs. 18 lakhs. Tribunal passed the award F
considering his earning capability as Rs. 18,0001- per
month and deducting 213 thereof as his personal
expenses. In view of age of the claimants multiplier of 13
applied.
G
~
.. Claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement in
the amount of compensation. Their plea was that
dependency of the parents should have been considered
791 H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 8 S.C.R.
A at 2/3rd of the income and that expenses incurred during
treatment should have been awarded. Cross-objection
was filed by the Insurance Company. High court
maint.ained the estimated income of the deceased, but
opined that dependency of the claimants should have
B been at 2/3rd of the income. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was
also awarded towards medical expenses. Hence, the
present cross-appeals. •
Allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and
dismissing that filed by the Insurance Company, the
C Court
HELD: 1.1. The fact that the deceased was a brilliant
student is not in dispute. He had graduated in Business
Administration in U.K. Even as a student, in a job on a
D •part-time basis he was being paid a salary of Rs.80,000/
. - per month ((UK£ 1008.31). He paid his income-tax even
in U.K. After his graduation, he came back to India. He
was offered a job , by a company based in Chicago, USA
at an annual salary of Rs.18 lakhs (i.e. $ 41,600/-).
E However, when the accident took place he was not
working; having not accepted the said offer. He was still
a student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal
to calculate the amount of compensation towards the
loss of dependency on that basis. [Para 9) [797-E-G]
F 1.2. The Tribunal and the High Court, might not be
correct in holding that he would have earned only
Rs.18,000/- per month. It is true that the cost of living in
the western countries would be higher. The standard of
living in the western countries cannot be followed; in the
G absence of any material placed before this Court it should
not be followed in India. [Para 10) [797-H; 798-A]
1.3. The fair amount of compensation should have
been calculated at Rs.25,000/- per month being about 1/
H
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 793
AND ORS.
-'
3rd of the amount which he was receiving in U.K. [Para A
11] (799-F]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Patricia Jean
Mahajan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 281; United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (2002) B
6 sec 281, referred to.
2.1. Deduction of 113rd towards personal expenses
is the ordinary rule in India. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the same should be applied.
The concept of joint family unlike the western countries c
where it has been wholly evaporated, although on the
decline, should also be taken into consideration. The
·~
deceased's father was a Doctor working in a Government
Hospital; he was aged about 51 years at the time of the
~
accident; he would have retired from the Government job D
after a few years. He might not, therefore, be completely
dependent upon his son. Therefore, having regard to his
age as also the age of his wife multiplier of 10 should be
applied. This is done keeping in view the fact that the
~
court has a duty to grant a just and reasonable E
compensation. What would, however, be a just and
--· reasonable compensation depends upon the fact
situation obtaining in each case. No hard and fast rule
therefor can be laid down. The finding required to be
arrived at by the choice of multiplicand as also the F
multiplier would depend upon a large number of factors.
The court must also bear in mind that compensation
should not be treated to be wind-fall. [Paras 14 and 16)
[804-B-F]
2.2. The multiplier referred to in the Second Schedule G
in the Act may not automatically be applied in a case
initiated uls. 166 of the Act. However, the aforementioned
multiplier is applied keeping in view the fact that the
multiplier specified in the Second Schedule would not
ordinarily be applicable in a case under Section 166 of H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
I.
A the Act [Para 15) [804-F-G]
Donat Louis Machado and Ors. v. L. Ravindra and Ors.
1998 8 SCC 633; Halkibai and Anr. v. Managing Director,
Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. and Anr. 2004 ACJ 481;
8 Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. (2006) 3
SCC 242; Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs.
Sarojamma and Anr. (2008) 5 sec 142, relied on
Fakeerappa and Anr. vs. Kamataka Cement Pipe Factory
and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 473; Bilkish vs. United India Insurance
c Co. Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 259 and Syed Basheer Ahamed and
Ors: vs. Mohammed Jameel and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 225,
referred to.
,.
Case Law Reference :
D 2002 6 sec 281 Referred to Para 10
2002 6 sec 281 Referred to Para 10
1998 8 sec 633 Relied on Para 13
E 2004 ACJ 481 Relied on Para 13 ,,__
2004 2 sec 473 Referred to Para 13
2006 3 sec 242 Relied on Para 13
F
2008 4 sec 259 Referred to Para 13 ·--
2008 5 sec 142 Relied on Para 13
2009 2 sec 225 Referred to Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 3482 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.10.2006 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in M.A. No. 1842 of 2005.
H
...... ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 795
AND ORS.
,.
WITH A
•
C.A. No. 3492 of 2009.
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat Dv. and Dhiraj for the
Appellants.
B
Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain and Pratibha Jain for the
• Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. What should be the appropriate multiplier as also the
multiplicand in a case where a student having a brilliant career
and had an offer of employment from a U.S. based Company
is the question involved in these appeals.
c
D
They arise out of the following factual ml:ttrix.
Deepak Patodi was 22 years of age on 12.6.2003 when
the accident took place. He was the only son of the claimants.
-r·
.,..- The accident took place when he was going to Bhopal along E
with his friends in a Tata lndica Car. He was immediately taken
_,, to "Chirayu Hospital" at Bhopal and thereafter shifted to
'Bhandari Hospital' in Indore. On 18.6.2003, he succumbed to
-~
the head injury suffered by him in the said incident..
F
3. His parents filed an application under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") on or about
24.12.2003 inter alia claiming a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as
compensation on the premise that while he was doing his
Business Administration Course in U.K. he was also doing a
G
part-time job with World Bank on a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/
~
- (UK£ 1008.31) and he was offered an employment in the
capacity of EU Controller in GOA LLC, a company registered
in USA at an annual remuneration of Rs.18 lakhs per annum
approx. ($41,600/-)
H
A
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
Indisputably, he did not accept the said offer. He intended
-
to pursue his higher studies in MBA at Central Queensland
University in Australia.
4. The learned Tribunal opined that keeping in view his
capability he would have been employed on a monthly salary
B of Rs.18,000/- per month. 2/3rd was deducted from the said
amount for working out the loss of dependency of the claimants
at 1/3rd. The multiplier of 13 was applied keeping in view the
age of the claimants. An amount of Rs.9,36,000/- by way of
compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.2000/
C - was also granted towards funeral expenses.
5. The claimants preferred an appeal thereagainst in the
High Court which was registered as M.A. No. 1842 of 2005.
Enhancement in the amount of compensation was claimed inter
D alia on the premise that the dependency of the parents should
have been taken into consideration at 2/3rd of the income of
the deceased and furthermore the expenses incurred during
treatment should have also been awarded. The insurance
company filed cross objections in the said appeal in terms of
E Order XU Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground
that the income of the deceased could not be taken at
Rs.18,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent evidence
and that the claimants were not dependents on the deceased.
·-
6. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High court
F while maintaining the estimated Income of the deceased at
Rs.18,000/- per month on a notional basis opined that the
dependency of the claimants should have been taken at 2/3rd
of the income of the deceased. The High court also noticed that
although the Tribunal had found that claimants must have spent
G a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards treatment of the deceased, but
r:io compensation on that head was awarded by it. The High
Court, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the
medical expenses. Applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of
dependency was calculated at Rs.18,72,000/-. A sum of
H Rs.25,000/- was also granted towards the funeral expenses.
l: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 797
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
-"
Both the insurance company as also the claimants are A
before us.
7. Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the insurance company would contend that the deceased being
a bachelor and for all intent and purport being a dependant on B
his parents and as he intended to pursue his higher studies in
} Australia, the Tribunal had rightly calculated the loss of
dependency of parents at 1/3rd of his income and not 2/3rd.
8. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the claimants, on the other hand, would contend that c
the learned Tribunal could not have estimated the income of the
deceased only at Rs.18,000/- per month keeping in view the
background as also the salary he had obtained even as part-
time employee as also the offer which he received from an U.S.
based Company. D
9. The question in regard to the calculation of loss of
dependency, it is trite, would vary from case to case.
., The fact that the deceased was a brilliant student is not in
dispute. He had graduated in Business Administration in U.K. E
Even as a student, in a job on a part-time basis he was being
paid a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month ((UK£ 1008.31). He
... paid his income-tax even in U.K.
After his graduation, he came back to India. He was F
offered a job as EU Controller by GOA LLC, a company based
in Chicago, USA at an annual salary of Rs.18 lakhs (i.e. $
41,600/-). However, when the accident took place he was not
working; having not accepted the said offer. He was still a
student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal to G
• calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of
dependency on that basis.
10. The Tribunal and the High Court, however, in our
opinion, keeping in view the aforementioned backdrop might
'·· H
not be correct in holding that he would have earned only
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A Rs.18,000/- per month. It is true that the cost of living in the
western countries would be higher. The standard of living in the
western countries cannot be followed; in the absence of any
material placed before this Court it should not be followed in
India. Even in a case where the victim of an accident was
B earning salary in U.S. Dollars, this Court opined that a lower
multiplier should be applied.
•
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Patricia Jean
Mahajan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 281], this Court held:
c "19. In the present case we find that the parents of the
deceased were 69/73 years. Two daughters were aged
17 and 19 years. The main question, which strikes us in •
this case is that in the given circumstances the amount of
multiplicand also assumes relevance The total amount of
D dependency as found by the learned Single Judge and
also rightly upheld by the Division Bench comes to
2,26,297 dollars. Applying multiplier of 10, the amount with
interest and the conversion rate of Rs 47, comes to
Rs 10.38 crores and with multiplier of 13 at the conversion
E rate of Rs.30 the amount comes to Rs 16.12 crores with
interest. These amounts are huge indeed. Looking to the
Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount
is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background
of American conditions it may not be so. Therefore, where
F there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions
and affluence of the two places viz. the place to which the
victim belongs and the place where the compensation is
to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere.
to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the
Indian standards they may not be much too
G
overcompensated and similarly not very much
undercompensated as well, in the background of the
country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside.
Two of the dependants, namely, parents aged 69/73 years
live in India, but four of them are in the United States. Shri ....
H
r ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 799
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
-"
Soli J. Sorabjee submitted that the amount of multinlicand A
shall surely be relevant and in case it is a high amount, a
lower multiplier can appropriately be applied. We find force
in this submission ....
20. The court cannot be totally oblivious to the realities. The
B
Second Schedule while prescribing the multiplier, had
maximum income of Rs. 40,000 p.a. in mind, but it is
" considered to be a safe guide for applying the prescribed
multiplier in cases of higher income also but in cases
-- where the gap in income is so wide as in the present case
income is 2,26,297 dollars, in such a situation, it cannot
c
be said that some deviation in the multiplier would be
• impermissible. Therefore, a deviati~n from applying the
multiplier as provided in the Second Schedule may have
to be made in this case. Apart from factors indicated earlier
the amount of multiplicand also becomes a factor to be D
taken into account which in this case comes to 2,26,297
dollars, that is to say an amount of around Rs. 68 lakhs
per annum by converting it at the rate of Rs. 30. By Indian
_._ standards it is certainly a high amount. Therefore, for the
purposes of fair compensation, a lesser multiplier can be E
applied to a heavy amount of multiplicand."
The said decision, however, to some extent was clarified
""' by this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank & Anr.
[(2003) 6 sec 79). F
11. It is in the aforementioned situation, we are of the
opinion that the fair amount of compensation should have been
calculated at Rs.25,000/- per month being about 1/3rd of the
amount which he was receiving in U.K.
G
---r<, r 12. The next question which arose for our consideration
I
for the purpose of loss of dependency is whether 1/3rd from
the said amount should be deducted or 2/3rd.
13. Mr. Dua relied on a decision of this Court in Donat
H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A Louis Machado & Ors. v.
L. Ravindra & Ors. [1998] 8 SCC
633] wherein it was opined:
"Consequently, the total amount would work out at Rs. 7500
per month during the whole span of future career and taking
an average at 50%, his future monthly income during the
8
rest of the life could have worked out at Rs. 3750. On that
basis, 12 months' earning would have been Rs.45,000 and
-
adopting a multiplier of 15 looking to the young age of the
deceased the total economical gain to his estate would
work out at Rs. 6,75,000 at least. But taking a conservative
c figure of Rs 6 lakhs it can easily be visualised that the
claimants who are the parents and unmarried sister and
who are dependent on him would have got at least 1/3
amount as he would have spent the rest of 2/3 amount of
his earnings on his own family which he would have raised
D and on himself. This would come to a figure of Rs. 2 lakhs.
This can easily be treated to be the appropriate
compensation payable to the claimants on account of
economical loss suffered by them as a result of the
unfortunate accident to their breadwinner."
E :...
In Halkibai and Anr. vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan
State Road Trans. Corpn. and Anr. [2004 ACJ 481], the
Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior
Bench) held as under: ~
F "As regards determining dependency of the mother of the
deceased is concerned, this question has already been
settled by the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis
Machado, 1999 ACJ 1400 (SC). This judgment was
considered by this court in a recent decision in the case
G of Parathsingh v. Sanjay Sharma, 2003 (1) TAC 103
(MP) and in Rajesh v. Rajesh alias Pappu, M.A. No. 291 1 ·"'-
of 2003; decided on 18.8.2003 and ratio has been laid
down that in the case of parents of the deceased,
dependency will be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
H at the time of his death. The judgment of Supreme Court
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 801
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
_.
is binding upon this court and there is no reason to differ A
from the said judgment. Therefore, we hold that the
dependency of the parents of the deceased shall be 1/3rd
of income of the deceased. This view has been taken by
various Division Benches and this being consistent view,
we do not wish to differ from it." B
However, somewhat different view was taken by this Court
~
in Fakeerappa & Anr. vs. Kamataka Cement Pipe Factory &
Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 473], wherein it was held:
"6. Learned counsel for Respondent 2, submitted that there c
cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the
(
percentage 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 D
'1
as fixed. Further, before the 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. E
'• xxx xxx xxx
... •
8. 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 F
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 account special
features of the case we feel it would be appropriate to G
-' 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 H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 8 S.C.R.
A before the High Court and even in the appeal filed by the
appellants before the High Court, the plea was not taken."
In Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors. ((2006)
3 sec 242] this court deducted 1/3rd from the earnings of the
deceased inter alia holding:
8
"... It is by now well settled that the compensation should
be the pecuniary loss to the dependants by the death of a
person concerned. While calculating the compensation,
annual dependency of the dependants should be
c determined in terms of the annual loss, according to them,
due to the abrupt termination of life. To determine the
quantum of compensation, the earnings of the deceased
at the time of the accident and the amount, which the
deceased was spending for the dependants, are the basic
.
·o determinative factors. The resultant figure should then be
multiplied by a "multiplier". The multiplier is applied not for
the entire span of life of a person, but it is applied taking
into consideration the imponderables in life, immediate
availability of the amount to the dependants, the
E expectancy of the period of dependency of the claimants
and so many other factors. Contribution towards the
expenses of the family, naturally is in proportion to one's
earning capacity. In the present case, the earning of the
deceased and consequently the amount which he was
F spending over the members of his family i.e. dependency
is to be worked out on the basis of the earnings of the
deceased at the time of the accident. The mere assertion
of the claimants that the deceased would have earned
more than Rs.8000 to Rs.10,000 per month in the span of
his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income
G
unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent
and reliable evidence before MACT. The claimants have
to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would
have earned more from time to time or that he had special
merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have
H
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 803
AND ORS. [S.B .. SINHA, J.]
led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence A
produced on record by the claimants regarding future
prospects of increase of income in the course of
employment or business or profession, as the case may
be. It is stated that the deceased was about 24 years old
at the time of the accident. MACT has accepted Rs.4000 B
per month, as the earning of the deceased and after
deducting Rs .400 per month for his pocket expenses, the
remaining sum of Rs. 3600 has been divided into three
equal shares, out of which two shares i.e. Rs.2400 per
month or Rs.28,800 (wrongly mentioned as Rs.28,000 in c
the award), were assessed as loss to both the claimants,
who were the parents of the deceased. The ages of the
claimants are stated to be between 45 and 50 years and
accordingly multiplier of 12 was applied. Thus, a sum of
Rs 28,800 x 12 = Rs.3,45,600 was awarded as D
compensation."
In Bilkish vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2008) 4
SCC 259], this Court held:
"4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are E
of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court &
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 and rest of the amount earned by him
would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining F
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 ..... "
... Yet again in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport G
Corporation vs. Sarojamma & Anr. [(2008) 5 SCC 142], this
Court held:·
"9. Whereas in determining an application for grant of
compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A may be entitled to find out actual loss of damages suffered
by the claimants, the formula having not envisaged such a
contingency, we are of the opinion that ordinarily one-third
should be deducted from the income of the deceased and
not the half thereof...... "
B
In Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors. vs. Mohammed Jameel
& Anr. [(2009) 2 sec 225], one-half (50%) of the income was
~
held to be deductible if the deceased was a bachelor.
14. Indisputably, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal
c expenses is the ordinary rule in India. We think that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the same should be applied.
The concept of joint family unlike the western countries where
it has been wholly evaporated, although on the decline, should
also be taken into consideration. The deceased's father was
D a Doctor working in a Government Hospital; he was aged about
51 years at the time of the accident; he would have retired from
the Government job after a few years. He might not, therefore,
be completely dependent upon his son. We, therefore, are of
the opinion that having regard to his age as also the age of
E his wife multiplier of 10 should be applied. We do so keeping
in view the fact that the Court has a duty to grant a just and
reasonable compensation. What would, however, be a just and
reasonable compensation depends upon the fact -situation
obtaining in each case. No hard and fast rule therefor can be
F laid down. The Court must also bear in mind that compensation
should not be treated to be wind-fall.
15. We are not oblivious of the fact that the multiplier
referred to in the Second Schedule in the Act may not
automatically be applied in a case initiated under Section 166
G of the Act. We have applied the aforementioned multiplier
keeping in view the fact that the multiplier specified in the ~
,'
Second Schedule would not ordinarily be applicable in a case
under Section 166 of the Act.
H 16. The finding required to be arrived at by the choice of
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 805
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
multiplicand as also the multiplier would depend upon a large A
number of factors as this aspect of the matter has been
considered in various judgments, the same need not be
reiterated.
17. The question, in an appropriate case, may require 8
consideration by a larger Bench.
18. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the
insurance company is dismissed and that of the appellant is
allowed. Tribunal may draw a fresh award in the light of the
observations made hereinbefore. No costs. C
K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.
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