Holding

The tribunal erred in its dependency assessment and multiplier, and the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 86,000 with a 24‑year multiplier, 12% interest, and no deductions.

Summary

Padmakar More died in a bus accident in 1978, and his father, widow, and minor daughter filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded Rs 26,000, fixing the family’s monthly dependency at Rs 150 based on an unsubstantiated claim that the deceased was a drunkard, and applied a 17‑year multiplier. The High Court dismissed the appeals but raised the interest rate to 9%. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence of alcoholism and that the deceased actually supported his family with Rs 300 per month, rendering the tribunal's dependency assessment erroneous. The Court also found the 17‑year multiplier inappropriate, directing a 24‑year multiplier to reflect the deceased’s age, family longevity, future increments, and loss of consortium. Consequently, compensation was enhanced to Rs 86,000, apportioned Rs 40,000 to the daughter, Rs 30,000 to the widow, and Rs 16,000 to the father, with interest at 12% from the date of application. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether the tribunal erred in fixing the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs 150 based on an unproven allegation of the deceased being a drunkard.
Whether the multiplier of 17 years was appropriate or should be increased considering the deceased's age, family longevity, future increments, and loss of consortium.
Whether the interest rate on the compensation should be set at 12% from the date of application.
Whether any deductions should be made from the enhanced compensation due to the lapse of time.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actcompensationdeathdependencymultiplierinterestloss of consortiumfamily expensesappellate court

Judgment

SMT. PRERNA AND ANR. A
;.; v.
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

JANUARY 28, 1993

[KULDIP SINGH' AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] B

Motor Vehicles Act :
~
Accident resulting in death-Award of compensation-Depende11cy of
claimants-Fixing of-Longevity, future increme11ts and loss of consor-
tium--Consideration of-Higher multiplier-Adoption of-Enhancement of c
compensatio11 andrate of interest.

The lmsband of the petitioner died in a road accident. His father,
wife and minor daughter moved a petition before the Motor Accidents
_...._
Claim Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The tribunal
' D
ordered· payment of Rs. 26,000 and apportioned the amount amongst the
widow, minor daughter and father at Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000, and Rs. 4,000
respectively. The Tribunal also ordered paymellt of interest @ 6% from
the date of application.

i. The appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed by the High E
Court. However, it enhanced the interest from 6% to 9%. The widow and
minor daughter of the deceased preferred the present appeal against the
judgment of the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,
F
HELD : 1. There was no evidence before the tribunal to show that
--+- the deceased was addicted to drinking. The tribunal fell into patent error
in fixing the dependency of the claimants on the deceased to the extent of
Rs. 150 per month on the ground that he was a drunkard and as such was
spending more amount on himself than on his family. [3248-C] .
G
2. From the evidence on the record it can safely be concluded that
the deceased was spending Rs. 300 per month on bis family and running
\__
the house-hold. On the date of the accident, the deceased was 26 years of
age. The father of the deceased wa> aged about 70 years in 1985 when the
special leave petition was filed. Longevity in the family can, therefo<e, he H
321
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.
A assumed. The tribunal did not give any allowance for the future Increments
and promotional chances or the deceased. No compensation was awarded
for the loss or consortium. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstan·
ces it would be just and proper to allow 24 years multiplier, as against the
multiplier or 17 adopted by the Tribunal. On this basis a sum or Rs. 86,000
is awarded as compensation lo the three claimants. They shall also be
B
entitled lo interest @ 12% from the date or application before the tribunal.
Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about lS
years or the accident, there is no question of making any deductions on
any score. The sum or Rs. 86,000 shall be apportioned by paying Rs. 40,000
to the minor daughter, Rs. 30,000 to the widow or the deceased and Rs.
c 16,000 lo the father of the deceased. [324E-HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 278 of
1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1984 of the Madhya
D Pradesh High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 215 of 1982.

Sushi! Kumar Jain for the Appellants.

Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Nath, (for Mis Rajinder Narain &. Co.
E for the Respondents. ·

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

KULDIP SINGH, J, Special leave granted.

F Padmakar More was going on a bicycle on September 9, 1978 when
he was knocked down by a Bus owned by the respondent-corporation. He
succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Narayan, father of Padmakar,
Prerna his widow and Shweta a minor daughter moved a petition before
the First Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Indore claiming Rs.
1,50,000 as compensation. The tribunal by its award dated April 27, 1982
G allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of Rs. 26,000 with interest
at 6% from the date of the application. The tribunal further directed the
said amount to be apportioned as Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 4,000
amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively. The
tribunal further directed that the share of the minor daughter be deposited
H in the State Bank of India, Indore in re-investment scheme, which shall be
sMT. PRERNA v. S.R.T.C. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 323
payable to her on attaining majority. The tribunal based its findings on the A
following reasoning :

'In view of foregoing discussion my finding is that the
accident took place due to negligent driving of the motor
bus by the N.A. No.2 and as a result of the said accident
B
Padmakar sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them
on the spot. Issue No.3- Date of birth of Padmakar as per
record of the Hukum Chand Mills is 16th June, 1952. He
was thus 26 years of age on the date of the accident.
According to pay sheet of the Hukum Chand Mills for
August, 1978 Padmakar was given Rs. 411.70 paise as c
gross salary excluding the deduction on account of advan-
ces and Rs. 27 on account of canteen and insurance. After
deduction of the amount of canteen and insurance the net
amount of salary comes to Rs. 384.70 paise. It appears
that Padmakar was a drunkard. Naturally he might be
D
spending more amount on himself than on his family. The
dependency may be taken Rs. 1.50 per month. Padmakar
was young man of 26 years. 17 years multiplier would be
just and proper in this case. Thus the gross compensation
comes to Rs. 30,600. Out of this 15% are deducted on
account of lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life. E
Thus the net compensation comes to Rs. 26,000. I have
not taken into consideration the future increment of Pad-
makar and therefore, the deduction on account of
lumpsum payment and uncertainties of life should have
been less than 15%. However, I have deducted 15% F
keeping in view that the widow of Padmakar is young lady
of about 21 years and there is more chance of her re-mar-
riage. Out of Rs. 26,000, Rs. 4000 are apportioned to the
share of old father Narayan of Padmakar. Rs. 10,000 to
the share of minor daughter of Padmakar and Rs. 12,000
to the share of widow of Padmakar." G

The claimants went in appeal against the award of the tribunal. The
Corporation also filed an appeal against the judgment of the tribunal. By
a common judgment dated October 9, 1984 the High Court dismissed both
the appeals. The High Court, however, enhanced the interest awarded to H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.
A the claimants from 6% to 9%. This appeal is by the widow and the minor
daughter for enhancement of compensation. Narayan, father of the
deceased has also been impleaded as proforma respondent.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that
decreased Padmakar was 26 years of age on the date of the accident. It is
B also not disputed that after deductions his pay packet used to be Rs. 384.70.
There was no evidence before the tribunal to show that the deceased
Padmakar was addicted to drinking. The tribunal fell into patent error in
fixing the dependency of the claimants on the deceased Padmakar to the
extent of Rs. 150 per month on the ground that Padmakar was a drunkard
and as such was spending more amount on himself than on his family. The
c High Court on this aspect held as under :

"There is no evidence to indicate that the deceased was a
drunkard or that even at the time of the accident he was
in a drunken state and that it is on that account that of
D his own he. foll down on the ground on the road and thus
sustained the injuries which resulted in his death.'

We are of the view that from the evidence on the record it can safely
be concluded that the deceased was spending Rs. 300 per month on his
family and running the house-hold. We set aside the finding of the trial
E court as upheld by the High Court on this issue. We are further of the view
that the tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of seventeen
in this case. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death. The
cause-title of the special leave petition shows that Narayan, the father of
the deceased was aged about 70 years in 1985 when the special leave
F petition was filed. Longevity in the family can, therefore, be assumed. The
tribunal did not give any allowance for the future increments and promo-
tional chances of Padmakar. No compensation was awarded for the loss of
consortium. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the i;ase it
would be just and proper to allow 24 years multiplier. We, therefore, award
Rs. 86,000 as compensation to the three claimants. They shall also be
G entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of application before the tribunal.
Since the compensation is being enhanced by this Court after about 15
years of the accident, there is no question of making any deductions on any
score. We further direct that the sum of Rs. 86,000 shall be apportioned
by paying Rs. 40,000 to .the minor daughter Shweta, Rs. 30,000 to Prerna,
H widow of the decease..; and Rs. 16,000 to Narayan the father of the
SMT. PRERNA v. S.R.T.C. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] . 325
deceased. We further direct that the share of the minor daughter Shweta A
;.( be deposited in the bank as per the directions of the tribunal. After
deducting the amount, if any, already paid to any of the claimants the
balance amount with interest shall be paid by the respondent-corporation
to the claimants within two months from today. The appeal is allowed with
costs which we quantify as Rs. 5000 to be paid by the Corporation to
Prerna, widow of the deceased. The appeal is allowed to the above extend. B

G.N. Appeal allowed.

0

-