Supreme Court of India
ROOPWATI & ORS.versusRAM KISHAN & ORS.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 1089
- Decided
- 14 October 2022
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- HEMANT GUPTA
Holding
The High Court correctly fixed the multiplier at 13, awarded compensation for future prospects, and set interest at 7.5%, and the Supreme Court upheld this order.
Summary
Hari Ram died in a motor accident on 22 November 2010 while riding a three‑wheeler driven by Ram Kishan and insured by IFFCO Tokio. His wife, son and mother claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 4,33,000 using a multiplier of 9, based on an alleged age of 60 and without any amount for future prospects. On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that scientific evidence showed the deceased was 50 years old, applied a multiplier of 13, allowed compensation for future prospects and increased the interest rate to 7.5%, raising the award to Rs 6,55,000. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s alteration of the multiplier, inclusion of future prospects and the higher interest rate. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s findings on age, multiplier, future prospects and interest rate to be correct and dismissed the appeal, upholding the increased compensation.
Issues considered
- The correct age of the deceased for multiplier calculation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether a multiplier of 13, rather than 9, should be applied to the annual loss of income.
- Whether compensation for future prospects should be awarded in a death claim.
- Whether the rate of interest on the compensation award should be 7.5% instead of 7%.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Motor accidentCompensationMultiplierInterest rateMotor Vehicles ActInsurance liabilityDeath claim
Judgment
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 561 561
ROOPWATI & ORS. A
v.
RAM KISHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6818 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022 B
[HEMANT GUPTA AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident resulting in death
of a person – Compensation claim on his behalf by his wife, his son
and his mother – Accident occurred when deceased was riding on
C
a three-wheeler with his brother – The vehicle was being driven by
respondent no. 1, and was insured with respondent no.3-insurance
company – Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur
due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the three-wheeler
and fixed the liability on the insurance company – Total amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.4,33,000/- – Appeal D
– High Court awarded increased compensation on the opinion that
the multiplier should have been thirteen instead of nine and the
Tribunal was wrong in not granting any amount towards the future
prospects – Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation
awarded to Rs. 6,55,000/- and also increased the rate of interest
E
from 7% to 7.5% – Held: The change of multiplier was granted by
the High Court as the age of the deceased was wrongly recorded as
60 and was found to be 50 years, based on scientific evidence –
High Court correctly awarded the compensation – Order of High
Court upheld.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6818
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 26.09.2018 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 6277 of 2014
(O&M).
G
Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Mukesh Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ravi Shankar Jha, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Abhinav Singh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
H
561
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. This appeal is of the claimants, which arises out of the Impugned
Judgment dated 26.09.2018 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims
B Tribunal (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 13.05.2013.
2. The accident occurred on 22.11.2010 when the deceased Hari
Ram was riding on a three-wheeler with his brother Dev Prasad from
Mitrol to Palwal, Haryana. The vehicle was being driven by respondent
no. 1, i.e., Ram Kishan and was insured with respondent no. 3 (IFFCO
C TOKIO General Insurance Company LTD.). During the journey an
accident occurred and the vehicle was toppled which resulted in grievous
injuries to the body of Hari Ram. He was taken to the hospital but he
succumbed to his injuries on the very next day on 23.11.2010. The claim
petition was filed on his behalf by his wife, his son and his mother. The
D Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur due to the rash
and negligent driving by driver of the three-wheeler. The vehicle was
insured with respondent no.3 insurance company and the liability was
fixed on the insurance company by the Tribunal. The award was made
on the following: -
A Expenses incurred on the treatment of Rs.13,000/-
E deceased during admission
B Monthly income of the deceased Hari Rs.5,000/-
Ram
C After deducting 1/4th from the monthly Rs.3,750/-
income of Rs.5000/- in view
dependency of deceased, the amount
comes to,
D Annual Income of the deceased 12= Rs.3,750/-
F comes to x
Rs.45,000/-
E Multiplier of ‘9’ is to be applied x 9 = Rs.45,000/-
Applied keeping in view the age of the
deceased as 60 years as per Sarla
Verma’s case
Rs.4,05,000/-
G F Compensation on account of last rites Rs.5,000/-
and transportation charges
G Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.5,000/-
H Compensation towards loss of Rs.5,000/-
consortium
The total amount of compensation Rs.4,33,000/-
H
ROOPWATI & ORS. v. RAM KISHAN & ORS. 563
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
3. The matter was taken in appeal by the High Court which after A
considering the submissions of the Ram Kishan and respondent no.3
awarded them increased compensation on the opinion that the multiplier
should have been thirteen instead of nine and the Tribunal was wrong in
not granting any amount towards the future prospects.
4. Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation awarded B
to Rs. 6,55,000/- with the amount to be given at the 7.5 % interest. The
change of multiplier was granted by the High Court as the age of the
deceased was wrongly recorded as 60 and was found to be 50 years,
based on scientific evidence. The High Court has also increased the
rate of interest from 7% to 7.5%.
C
5. The High Court has correctly awarded the compensation and
the order of the High Court needs no interference by this Court. Hence
this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal dismissed. D
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident"Sign in to search