REBEKA MINZ AND ORS.versusDIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

                     [2012] 7 S.C.R. 381


                 REBEKA MINZ AND ORS.                              A
                               v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
                    LTD. AND ANR.
        (Civil Appeal Nos. 5399-5400 of 2012)
                                                                   B
                     AUGUST 23, 2012

   [G.S. SINGHVI AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
                  KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accidental death - Quantum         C
of compensation - Appropriate multiplier - Rate of interest
payable - Held: Since the deceased was stated to be 35 years
old at the time of his death, the multiplier would be 16 which
has to be applied for calculating the compensation - The
Tribunal had found that after deducting 113rd of personal          D
expenses, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7, 0001
- and the net contribution to the family was ascertained at Rs.
84, 0001- p. a - Applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation
works out to Rs. 13,44,0001- - Said sum of Rs. 13,44,0001-to
carry interest@ 7% p.a. from the date of application till the      E
date of realization.

      One person while riding on a scooter met with an
accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of a truck and consequently died. The appellants being
the wife and children of the deceased preferred claim              F
before the Motor Accidents Tribunal. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.10,08,000/- as compensation
alongwith interest @ 7% for specified period. While
appellants were aggrieved insofar as the Tribunal applied
the multiplier 12 instead of 17, having regard to the fact         G
that the deceased at the time of his death was 35 years
old as well as non-grant of interest for certain period, the
first respondent-insurance company was aggrieved of the

                             381                                   H
    382    SUPREME. COURT REPORTS             [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A very award of compensation itself. In appeal, the High
  Court reduced the amount of compensation to
  Rs.5,00,000/- and also the rate of interest to 6% (payable
  from the date of the claim application till deposit of the
  amount). Hence the present appeals.
B
      Allowing the appeals, the Court

         HELD: 1. The impugned order of the High Court
    being a non-speaking order calls for interference. [Para
    3] [385-A]
c
       2.1. Since the deceased was stated to be 35 years old
  at the time of his death, the multiplier would be 16 which
  has to be applied for calculating the compensation. The
  Tribunal after examining the materials before it, found that
0 after deducting 1/3rd of personal expenses, the monthly
  income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- and the net
  contribution to the family was ascertained at Rs. 84,000/
  - per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, the
  compensation works out to Rs. 13,44,000/-. Therefore,
E while setting aside the order of the High Court insofar as
  it reduced the quantum of compensation, the
  compensation payable to the appellants is modified to a
  sum of Rs. 13,44,000/- [84,000/- x 16]. The said sum of Rs.
  13,44,000/-should carry interest at the rate of 7% per
  annum from the date of application till the date of
F realization. [Para 5] [386-A-C]

       2.2. The first respondent is, therefore, directed to pay
  to the appellants the total amount of compensation in the
  sum of Rs. 13,44,000/- after giving credit to whatever
G payment already made by calculating the rate of interest
  from the date of application till realization. Such payment
  should be made in the proportion as set out by the
  Tribunal in the last para of its order dated 10.07.2007. With
  the above modification in the quantum of compensation
H and the rate of interest payable right from the date of
REBEKA MINZ v. DIV. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 383
                       CO. LTD.

application, the compensation shall be made within a              A
period of three months from the date of this order. (Para
6) [386-D-F]

     Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. 2012 (6) SCC 421; Sar/a Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport      B
Corporation & Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR 1098 -
relied on.

                     Case Law Reference:

    2012 (6) sec 421          relied on             Para 4, 5     C

    2009 (5) SCR 1098         relied on             Para 4

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5399-5400 of 2012.
                                                                  D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2009 of the High
Court of Orissa, Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No. 953 of 2007 and
M.A.C.A. No. 821 of 2007.

    P.M. Misra, K.N. Tripathy for the Appellants.
                                                                  E
    Devabrata for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. These
appeals at the instance of the claimants before the Motor         F
Accidents claims Tribunals challenge the common order of the
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack dated 05.03.2009 passed in
MACA No.821 of 2007 and MACA No.953 of 2007. MACA No.
821 of 2007 was preferred by the appellants while MACA
No.953 of 2007 was preferred by the first respondent-Insurance    G
company in the High Court. The husband of the first appellant
died in an accident on 04.01.1995 when he was returning from
the plant site on a scooter bearing registration No. OR-06-7703
around 6.30 a.m. near NALCO Nagar on NH-42 at a place
called Smelter Chhak, due to rash and negligent driving of the    H
    384       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   driver of the truck bearing registration No. ORA-4241.

       2. The appellants being the wife and children of the
  deceased preferred the claim before the Motor Accidents
  Tribunal in MAC case No.21 of 1995. The Tribunal, after
  analyzing the entire evidence placed before it, awarded a sum
8
  of Rs. 10,08,000/- as compensation along with interest at the
  rate of 7% per annum with effect from 03.02.1995 to
  22.08.1995 and again from 16.01.2007 till the payment within
  one month. While the appellants were aggrieved insofar as the
C Tribunal applied the multiplier 12 instead of 17, having regard
  to the fact that the deceased at the time of his death was 35
  years old as well as non-grant of interest for certain period, the
  first respondent was aggrieved of the very award of
  compensation itself. The High Court while disposing of the
  appeal reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and
D also the rate of interest by holding as under:-

                 "Considering the submissions of the learned counsel
          for the parties and keeping in view findings of the learned
          Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation
E         amount awarded and the basis on which the same has
          been arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice would be best
          served if the awarded compensation amount of
          Rs.10,08,000/- is modified and reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/
          - which is payable to the claimants. The claimants are also
F         entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the
          claim application, till deposit of the amount. The impugned
          award is modified to the said extent.

                The appellant insurance company (in MAGA No.953
          of 2007) is directed to deposit the modified compensation
G         amount of Rs, 5,00,000/- along with interest @6% per
          annum from the date of filling of claim application with the
          learned Tribunal within six weeks from today. On deposit
          of the amount, the same shall be disbursed to the
          claimants proportionately as per the direction of the
H         learned tribunal given in the impugned award."
REBEKA MINZ v. DIV. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 385
  CO. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     3. At the very outset, it is needless to state that the High   A
Court while reducing the quantum of compensation as well as
the rate of interest failed to assign any reason. The impugned
order of the High Court being a non-speaking order calls for
interference in these appeals.
                                                                    B
     4. As stated by us, the appellants, namely, the claimants
alone have come forward with these appeals. Therefore, the
only question to be examined is as to what is the multiplier to
be applied, which ground was though raised before the High
Court, we find that the High Court has not ventured to answer
the said question. This question has time and again been            C
considered by this Court. In a recent decision of this Court,
namely, Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. - 2012 (6) SCC 421-to which one of us (Hon. G.S. Singhvi.
J.) was a party, after referring to the decision in Sar/a Verma
& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. - 2009 (6) SCC         D
121 wherein the formula under different headings including the
one relating to selection of multiplier was quoted with approval.
The said formula has been set out in Sar/a Verma (supra) in
para 42 which reads as under:-
                                                                    E
           "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
    should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above
    (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
    and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18
    (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years),            F
    reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for
    26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to
    40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
    years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that
    is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7        G
    for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

     5. The said part of the formula was applied in the said
reported decision Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra) referred to above while working
out the compensation payable to the claimants therein. We,          H
    386      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A therefore, follow the above referred to decisions and when the
  said formula is applied since the deceased was stated to be
  35 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier would be
  16 which has to be applied for calculating the compensation.
  The Tribunal after examining the materials before it, found that
B after deducting 1/3rd of personal expenses, the monthly income
  of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- and the net contribution to the
  family was ascertained at Rs. 84,000/- per annum. Applying the
  multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs. 13,44,000/
  -. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the High Court
c insofar as it reduced the quantum of compensation, we modify
  the compensation payable to the appellants in a sum of Rs.
   13,44,000/- [84,000/- x 16]. The said sum of Rs. 13,44,000/-
  should carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date
  of application till the date of realization.

D      6. The first respondent is, therefore, directed to pay to the
  appellants the total amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.
  13,44,000/- after giving credit to whatever payment already
  made by calculating the rate of interest from the date of
  application till realization. Such payment should be made in the
E proportion as set out by the Tribunal in the last para of its order
  dated 10.07.2007. With the above modification in the quantum
  of compensation and the rate of interest payable right from the
  date of application, the compensation shall be made within a
  period of three months from the date of this order. The appeals
F stand allowed as above.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeals allowed.