Holding

The deceased was not contributorily negligent; the entire negligence rested on the truck driver, and compensation should be computed using the multiplier method, resulting in a award of Rs. 2,85,000.

Summary

The widowed wife and daughter of Captain Rama Kant Dixit, who died in a road accident when his scooter was struck by a truck, filed a claim under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking compensation. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal reduced the award by 75% on the ground of alleged contributory negligence by the deceased, while the High Court increased the award to Rs. 54,000 but also found no contributory negligence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the facts, held that the truck driver, who was unlicensed and drove at high speed, breached Regulation 6 of the Tenth Schedule and was wholly negligent, and that the deceased had not contributed to the accident. Applying the multiplier method endorsed in earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Court calculated the appropriate multiplicand (Rs. 18,000) and multiplier (15) to arrive at a compensation of Rs. 2,85,000, adding Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate and consortium. The Court also affirmed that the insurance company could not be held liable as the driver was unlicensed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower orders and directing the truck owner and driver to pay Rs. 2,85,000 with interest, while dismissing the claim against the insurer.

Issues considered

What is the proper amount of compensation payable to the appellants for the accidental death of the deceased?
Did the deceased contribute to the accident by any contributory negligence?
Whether the insurance company can be held liable for the compensation.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 110A, s. 110B

Subjects

motor vehicle accidentcompensationcontributory negligencemultiplier methodloss of dependencyMotor Vehicles ActSupreme Courtfatal accidentinsurance liability

Judgment

SMT. SARLA DIXIT AND ANR.
v.
BALWANT YADAV AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 29, 1996

B
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Section llOA-Accident claim-Deceased,
aged 27 years was serving as Captain in Anny-<iross salary of Rs. 1500 ...,
C p.m.-Future-Average gross monthly income of Rs. 2200-1/Jrd deducted by
way of personal expenses-Multiplier of 15-Rs. 15,00o-By way of loss of
estate and consortium-Award of total amount of Rs. 2,85,000.

Tort-Contributory Negligence-Accident on intersection of public
road-Deceased on scooter had crossed centre of road going towards southern
D side-Truck coming from western side dashed with right side of scooter-Case
of negligence of driver of truck:-Deceased had not contributed to the accident.

The appellants, widow and daughter of the deceased who died in a
road accident, filed a claim petition u/s HOA of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,12,524 on various heads against the respon·
E dents, driver and owner of the offending truck. The Accident Claims
Tribunal after computing the compensation of Rs. 1,70,238 on account of
untimely death of the deceased, payable to the appellant slicell it down by
75% on the ground that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence to
the extent of 75% and the truck driver was negligenct only to the extent of
F 25% and awarded in all Rs. 42,569 to the appellants. Respondents nos. 1
and 2 were made liable to pay the amount while respondent no. 3, the
insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on ground that at the
relevant time the offending truck W'dS being driven by respondent no. 2 who
was not having any driving licence. In appeal, the High Court awarded a
G total compensation of Rs. 54,000 while holding that nothing was required
to be sliced down from the amount as deceased was not guilty of any
contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder
of respondent no. 2, driver of the truck. Appellant's rest of the claim
against respondents was dismissed. Challenge of respondents nos. 1 and
2 to the award of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company was •
H rejected by the High Court. It was ordered that the appellants shall receive
30
SARLADIXITv. B. YADAV 31

one half costs of the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal and one-half A
costs of the appeal from respondents nos. 1 and 2 while they had to pay
the cost of insurance company i'n the proceeding before the claim Tribunal.

The appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court
obtained special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India
from this Court. B

The appellants contended that the deceased aged 27 years, serving
as Captain in Indian Army, was going on scooter when he was hit by the
offending truck while the scooter had entered the intersection, resulting in
his instantaneons death; that once it was held that the accident was caused C
on account of sole negligence of respondent no. 2, driver of the truck,
looking to the yonng age of the deceased and his future prospects in life
the High Court should have granted appropriate compensation to the
appellants and that the award of Rs. 54,000 was extremely conservative
and was too low.
D
The respondents nos. 1 and 2 while snpporting the award of com-
pensation as granted by the High Court sought to challenge the finding of
High Court that deceased was not guilty of any contributory negligence,
snbmitting that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that deceased
was guilty of contributory negligence and that in any case the amount E
awarded by the High Court was not required to be enhanced, even though
it might not be reduced as there was no cross appeal by respondents nos.
1and2.

Y The points raised for determination were (i) what was the proper
amonnt of compensation payable to the appellants on account of the F
accidental death of deceased· caused by the offending truck ? and (ii)
whether deceased had contributed towards the accident by his own
negligence to any extent.

Disposing of the matter, this Court
G
HELD : 1.1. Deceased, the only bread-winner in the family of the
appellants was cut short in the prime period of life at the age of 27 by the
accident caused by the truck.driver respondent no. 2. He had put in seven
years of niilitary service by that time. He was earlier a Lieutenant in the
Anny. Then he was promoted to the rank of Captain and was fully qualified H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A for promotion to the rank of a major at the time of his death. The
certificate issued by Dy. Comdt. showed that the deceased had obtained
some medals during active service in various operation areas. He bad
passed his M.A. examination at the time of his death. He was in the time
scale of Rs. 1000-50-1550. He had large nnmber of years of military service
B ahead of him which would have certainly taken him to higher echelons in
the military career. The evidence showed that he was a teetotaller. He did
not smoke or drink. Deceased in the present case was earning gross salary
of Rs. 1,543 per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs. 1,500 and keeping
in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military
C service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the
military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other
imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and
the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate
that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than
D what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e., Rs. 3000 per month had
he survived in life and had successfully completed bis future military
career till the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly
income could be arrived at by ailding the actual gross income at the time
of death, namely Rs. l,500 per month to the maximum which he would have
otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month
E and dividing the figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income
spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out
to Rs. 4,500 divided by 2, i.e., Rs. 2,200. Rs. 2,200 per month would have
been the gross monthly average. income available to the family of the
deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From the gross monthly
F income at least l/3rd will have to be deducted by way of his personal
expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. That would
work out to Rs. 730 per month but even taking a higher figure of Rs. 750
per month and deducting the same by way of average personal expenses of
the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs. 2,200 per month
G balance of Rs.1,450 which can be rounded off to Rs. l,500 per month would
have been the average amount available to the family of the deceased, i.e.,
his dependents, namely, appellants herein. It is this figure which would be
the datum figure per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs.
18,000. Rs. 18,000, therefore, would be the proper multiplicant which would
H be available for capitalisation for computing the future economic loss
)~
'

SARLADJX!Tv. B. YADAV 33

suffered by the appellants on account of untimely death of the bread A
winner. As the age of the deceased was 27 years and few a months, at the
time of his death the proper multiplier would be 15. Rs. 18,000 multiplied
by 15 will work out to Rs. 2,70,000. To this figure will have to be added the
conventional figure of Rs. 15,000 by way of loss of estate and consortium
etc. That will lead to a total figure of Rs. 2,85,000. This is the amount which B
the appellant would be entitled to get by way of compensation from
respondents nos. 1 and 2. [38-D-E, G-H; 42-F-H, 43-A-G)

Hardeo Kaur & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Corporation & Anr.,
[1992) 2 sec 567, distinguished
c
General Man ager, Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors., [1994) 2SCC176, relied on.

1.2 When the scooterist had entered the intersection from the north-
ern side and had covered almost half the distance of the width of that D
intersection the offending truck came from the western side and dashed
against the scooter and threw it off along with the driver and the pillion
rider. That indicated how fast the truck would have been driven from west
to east on the main road and because of that speed the scooterist who had
already crossed half the width of the road, was thrown off. That also E
indicated that the driver of the truck, respondent no.2 had not cared to
see the scooterist who had almost reached half way across his path while
he was proceeding from west to east on road no. 7 and without caring for
the safety of the scooterist who would have been clearly visible to him in
the broad day light while he was coming from the western side of the road F
and without least bothering for the safety of the scooterist crossing the
intersection. He almost ran over the scooter and threw it off. The injuries
noted by the doctor in the post-mortem report did not indicate that the
deceased was run over by the wheel of the truck but the severe impact
caused by the accident all on the right side of the body of the deceased
indicated the fierce collision between the scooter and the front left wheel G
of the truck. There would thus be two types of negligence on the part of
the truck driver, (i) he was proceeding with very high speed even though
he was approaching an intersection on that road; and (ii) the driver did
not care to look out for the safety of the scooterist who had already crossed
half of the intersection and almost come to the middle of the intersection H
and who would naturally be very must visible to the truck driver coming
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A from the western side and proceeding towards the east. The driver, respon-
dent no. 2, did not care even to slow down his speed. [46-C-GJ

All these facts unequivocally point to one and only conclusion that
it was the rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 2, a young boy aged
20, who was a novice driver without a license to drive such heayy vehicle,
B that had caused this nnfortnnate accident. Deceased was not at all
negligent and had not contribnted to the accident. [47-E-F]

1.3 Regulation (7) of Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act could
have been pressed in service against deceased if it was shown that while
C entering the intersection, having seen the on coming truck from his right
hand side he had not taken due precaution. Such a situation, on the facts
of the present case, was found to be absent. On the other hand respondent
no. 2 driving the offending truck on the main road no. 7 from west to east
was shown to have committed breach of Regulation (6) of the same
D Schedule. Respondent no. 2 was required to slow down while approaching
the road intersection or junction and as he had not done so but went on
driving with full speed the offending truck which threw off the scootcrist
who was already in the middle of the intersection, he was guilty of breach •
of Regulation (6) of Tenth Schedule and had endangered the safety of the
persons crossing the said road at the relevant time. Consequently the
E recklessness and negligence in driving the offending truck at the relevant
time wholly rest on the shoulder of respondent no. 3. Hence the question
of slicing down the compensation does not arise. [48-E-F, H; 49-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5157 of
1992.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.84 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in C.M.A.No. 174 of 1977.

S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants.
G
S.K. Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Ms. Monica Bhanot and Ms. Shuresh-
tha Bagga for the Respondent Nos. 1-2.

Dr. (Ms.) Meera Agarwal, N.L. Kakkar, R.C. Mishra for Agarwal &
H Mishra & Co. for the Respondent No.3.
j
SARLADIXITv. B. YADAV[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 35

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

S.B. MAJ MUDAR, J. The appellants, who were the original
claimants in Claim Petition No.9 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal, Gwalior, have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Civil Misc. Appeal B
No.174 of 1977 by which, according to the appellants, the High Court only
marginally enhanced the compensation payable by respondents nos.1 and
2 to the appellants. They have obtained special leave to appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India from this Court and that is how
this appeal was placed for final hearing before us.
c
Introductory Facts

A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at
the outset. Appellant No.1 is the widow of late Captain Rama Kant Dixit
who died on 16th March 1975 in a road accident. Appellant No.2 was the D
minor daughier of appellant no.1 who by no"'. has become major as she
... was aged 14 years in 1985 when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was
moved in this Court. It is the case of the appellants that late Capt. Rama
Kant Dixit was hit by the offending truck owned by respondent no.1 which
was driven at the relevant time by respondent no.2. The truck was insured
against third party risk by respondent no.3. That on the relevant date of E
the accident the deceased was aged 27 years and was serving as Captain
in Indian Army. He was going on 16th March 1975 at about 11.00 a.m. from
Chandra Prasth Colony side towards Mall Road, Morar, within the city of
Gwalior. That at that time respondent no.2 was driving the aforesaid truck
and was coming from the side of Gola-Ka-Mandir and was proceeding F
towards a locality known as J&K. The said road was a public road ad-
measuring 25 ft. in width and was running from west to east. The truck was
proceeding from west to east going towards eastern side where locality
J&K was situated. On the said road intersection no. 7 another public road,
was proceeding from. north to south and it was known as Indraprastha
Road. The deceased at the relevant time was driving a scooter carrying a. G
pillion rider, appellants' witness no.7 one Ramji Sharma. It is the case of
the appellants that while the scooter had entered the intersection and was
proceeding southwards on the said road respondent no.2 driving the truck
from the western side came in high speed and dashed against the scooter
resulting in instantaneous death of appellant no.l's husband Capt. Rama H
-~
\

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Kant Dixit. On account of the said accident the appellants having lost the
sole bread winner filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the Gwalior
Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the said
Claim Petition originally appellant no.l's mother-in-law, that is, mother of
deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined as one of the claimants but
pending the proceedings, she expired and the appellants continued the
B Claim Petition also as her heirs with the result that thereafter remained as
claimants only the present two appellants. The claimants put forward total
claim of Rs. 6,12,524 on various heads against the respondents. However,
the Tribunal after computing the compensation payable to the appellants
sliced it down by 75% on the ground that deceased Rama Kant was guilty
C of contributory negligence to the extent of 75% and the truck driver was
negligent only to the extent of 25% and •warded in all Rs. 42,569 to the
appellants. Respondents nos.l and 2 were made liable to make good the
said amount. Respondent no.3, the insurance company was exonerated by
the Tribunal as it was found that at the relevant time the offending truck
D was being driven by respondent no.2 who was not having any driving
licence. The appellants being aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal
preferred the aforesaid appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior. It may be noted that so far as respondents nos.1
and 2 were concerned they preferred Cross First Appeal No. 178 of 1977
challenging the award of the Tribunal against them and also to the extent
E respondent no3 was exonerated of its liability to meet the awarded claim.
Appellants did not press their challenge to the fmding of the Tribunal
exonerating respondent no.3, the insurance company, of its liability to meet
the claim of the appellants. So far as respondent nos.l and 2 are concerned,
their challenge to the award of the Tribunal exonerating respondent no.3,
F the insurance company, was rejected by the High Court. Consequently, the
only contest in appeal before the High Court centered round the question
about the computation of proper compensation to be awarded to the
appellants which in its turn also included the question whether any amount
could be sliced down from the computed compensation on the ground of
contributory negligence of deceased Rama Kant.
G
The High Court, therefore, addressed itself on these two main issues
and came to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to get total
compensation of Rs. 54,000 and that nothing was required to be sliced
down from the said amount as deceased Rama Kant was not guilty of any
H contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder
)
SARLADIX!Tv. B. YADAV[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 37

of respondent no.2, driver of the truck and consequently respondent no.2 A
and the owner of the truck, respondent no.1 were liable to meet the claim
,( of compensation awarded to the appellants. The High Court ordered that
Rs. 54,000 shall carry simple interest @ 6% from the date of the Claim
Petition, that is, 10th July 1975 till 13th October 1975 and then from 19th
January 1976 until full realisation. The claimants' rest of the claim against B
respondents nos.1 and 2 was dismissed Appellants' appeal was also dis-
missed with costs against respondent no.3, the insurance company. It was
also ordered that the appellants shall receive one-half costs of the proceed-
ing before the Claims Tribunal and one-half costs of the appeal from
respondents nos.1 and 2 while they had to pay the cost of insurance
company, respondent no.3, in proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. C
Respondents nos. 1 and 2 had to bear their own costs throughout.

Rival Contentions

In the present appeal learned counsel for the appellant-claimants D
vehemently contended that the award of compensation as granted by tlie
High Court in appeal was too much on the lower side. That the High Court
had not applied the correct principles in computing compensation in such
fatal accidents' cases and that once it was held that the accident was caused
on account of sole negligence of respondent no.2, driver of the truck,
looking to the young age of the deceased and his future prospects in life E
the High Court should have granted appropriate compensation to the
appellants. That award of Rs. 54,000 was to say the least extremely conser-
vative and was too low. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
nos. 1 and 2 tried to support the award of compensation as granted by the
High Court and while supporting the same learned counsel for the respon-
dents also sought to challenge the finding of the High Court that deceased F
Rama Kant was not guilty of any contributory negligence. It was tried to
be submitted that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that deceased
Rama Kant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 75% and
consequently in any case the amount awarded by the High Court was not
required to be enhanced, even though it may not be reduced as there is no G
cross appeal by respondents nos. 1 and 2. So far as the exoneration of
respondent no.3, the insurance company, is concerned, the said finding
reached by the Tribunal as well as the High Court could not be assailed
by respondents nos.I and 2 as they have not filed any cross appeal before
this Court challenging that part of the appellate decision rendered by the
High Court against them. H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A In view of the aforesaid rival contentions the following points arise
for our determination :

1. What is the proper amount of compensation payable to the appel-
lants on account of the accidental death of deceased Rama Kant Dixit
caused by the offending truck.
B
2. Whether deceased Rama Kant had contributed towards the said
accident by his own negligence to any extent.

3. What final order.

C We shall consider these aforesaid points seriatim :
Point No.1

On the question of computation of proper compensation to be
awarded to the appellant certain well established facts on the record of this
D case are required to be noted. The deceased was the only bread-winner in
the family of the appellants. He was cut short in the prime period of life
at the age of 27 by the accident caused by the truck driver resppndent no.2.
He had put in seven years of military service by that time. He was earlier
a Lieutenant in the Army. Then he was promoted to the rank of a Captain
and was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of a Major at the time of
E his death. The certificate issued by Dy. Comdt. & OC Tps. Rampa! Singh
showed that the deceased had obtained the following medals during active
service in various operation areas :

(a) Senya Seva Service Medal.

F (b) Sangram Medal.

(c) Poorvi Star.

(d) 25th Indept. Anniversary Medal.

G His gross salary at the time of his death was Rs. 1543 p.m. He had passed
his M.A. examination at the time of his death. He was in the time scale of
Rs. 1000-50-1500. He had large number of years of military service ahead
of him which would have certainly taken him to higher echelons in the
military career. The evidence showed that he was a teetotaller. He did not
H smoke or drink. This is established by the testimony of appellant no.l. The
SARLADIX!Tv. B. YADAV[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 39

Claims Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record came to A
the conclusion that on account of the untimely death of Rama Kant the
.( appellants suffered approximately a total monetary loss of Rs. 1,70,238. But
as the Tribunal found that the deceased was 75% responsible for the
accident the appellants were awarded only 25% of Rs. 1,70,238 which came
to Rs. 42,569. The High Court in appeal took the view that out of the gross B
salary of Rs. 1543 p.m. deceased Rama Kant would have spent on himself
Rs. 900 and from this an amount of Rs. 375 would have been spent on the
clothing of the deceased leaving Rs. 375 for the upkeep of the claimants
per month. Considering the earning of the deceased from his salary and
allowances from 1976 to 1996 the deceased would have spent a sum of Rs. C
1,28,131 being 25% of the gross emoluments on Appellants nos.1 and 2.
The average figure for 20 years came to Rs. 6406 per annum. This was
taken as the annual dependency multiplicant and adopting the multiplier
of 15, figure of Rs. 96060 was arrived at. It was noticed that family pension
of Rs. 200 p.m. was available to appellant no.1, widow of the deceased. On D
that basis a figure of Rs. 36,000 was worked out by adopting multiplier of
15 (that is to say) Rs. 200 multiplied by 12 which lead to a figure of Rs.
2,400 multiplied by 15. These Rs. 36,000 were deducted from Rs. 96,090
and accordingly a figure of Rs. 60,000 was reached. 10% deduction was
thereafter effected from the said figure and accordingly an amount of
compensation of Rs. 54,000 was worked out. Learned counsel for the E
appellants vehemently submitted that the aforesaid methods adopted by
the Tribunal as well as by the High Court for computation of compensation
are not scientific at all. That both for arriving at proper figure of multi-
plicand as well as multiplier the High Court had adopted a very conserva-
tive approach. In this connection reliance was placed on two decisions of F
this Court. lrt the case of Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation & Anr., [1992] 2 SCC ~67, for computing compensation avail-
able to the claimant-dependents of deceased Major in the military, who
died at the age of 39 because of vehicular accident the Court adopted
multiplier of 24. Strong reliance was placed on the said decision for G
adopting that multiplier. In our view on the peculiar facts of that case the
Court had adopted multiplier of 24. In paragraph 10 of the Report no
special reasons were assigned for adopting that multiplier. However, a
scientific basis for arriving at proper multiplicand and multiplier is supplied
by a latter decision of \his Court in the case of General Manager, Kera/a H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A State Road Transpon Corporation Trivandmm v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.)
& Ors. [1994] 2 SCC 176. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.N.
Vcnkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) and G.N. Ray, J. considered
in details appropriate method for arriving at proper multiplicand and
multiplier in fatal accident cases in the light of decided cases in this country
B as well as in England and laid down principles for computing compensation
in motor vehicle accident cases. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Report the
following pertinent observations were made :

"There were two methods adopted for determination and for
calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the
c multiplier mentioned in Davies case and the second in Nance v.
British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd.

The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances
D of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate
multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age
of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and
by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of
interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multi-
plicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard
E should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should
also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is
expected to last."

Thereafter on consideration of cases decided by English Courts and also
F observations found in Halsbury's Laws of England in vol. 34, para 98, the
Court laid down the test for adopting the multiplier in such cases in
paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report as under :

"It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically
sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which
G have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of
aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life

... expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards
uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as com-
pensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased
H was. say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy
)
SARLADIX!Tv. B. YADAV [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 41

is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for A
45 years - virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 - and even if
one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncer-
tainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the
effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly
impermissible. We are, aware that some decisions of the High B
Courts and of this Court and of this Court as well have arrived at
compensation on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said
to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances
of particular awards in individual cases. The proper method of
)( computation is the multiplier-method. A departure, except in ex-
ceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency C
of principle, lack of uniformity and an clemenl of unpredictability
for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High
Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on
the ground that Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory D
determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exer-
cise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the
multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just'
compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the
awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which
have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method E
is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be
justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very excep-
tional cases.

The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on F
which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a
case where annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,000. If a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will
take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this
case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and
not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the . G
annual dependency at Rs. 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier,
i.e., the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual
dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multi-
plier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties
of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and
the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of depend-
ency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multi-
plier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down
accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the
B dependants, whichever is higher) goes up."

So far as the adoption of the proper multiplier is concerned, it was
observed that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should
also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. While the
chance of the multiplier is determined by two factors, namely, the rate of
C interest 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 contingencies of the
future need not necessarily be baneful. Applying these principles to the
D facts of the case before this Court in the aforesaid case it was observed
that the deceased in that case was of 39 years of age. His income was Rs.
1,032 per month. He was more or less on a stable job and considering the
prospects of advancement in future career the proper higher estimate of
monthly income of Rs. 2,000 as gross income to be taken as average gross
E future income of the· deceased and deducting at least l/3rd therefrom by
way of personal living expenses, had he survived the loss of dependency,
could be capitalised by adopting the multiplicand of Rs. 1,400 per month
of Rs. 17,000 per year and that figure could be capitalised by adopting
multiplier of 12 which was appropriate to the age of deceased being 39 and
to that amount was added the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000 by way of
F loss of consortium and loss of estate. Adopting the same scientific yardstick
as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the computation of compensation
in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical
formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross
salary of Rs. 1,543 per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs. 1,500 and
G keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable
military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and perfor-
mance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view
the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military
duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to
H predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least
SARLADIX!Tv. B. Y ADAY [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 43

double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e., upto Rs. A
3,000 per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his
future military career till the time of superannuation. The average gross
future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross
income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 1,500 per month· to the maximum
which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premal ure death, i.e., B
Rs. 3,000 per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross
monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available,
would work out to Rs. 4,500 divided by 2, i.e., Rs. 2,200, Rs. 2,200 per
month would have been the gross monthly average income available lo the
family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From that gross
monthly income at least l/3rd will have to be deducted by way of his C
personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. That
would roughly work out to Rs. 730 per month but even taking a higher
figure of Rs. 750 per month and deducting the same by way of average
personal expenses of the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs.
2,200 per month balance of Rs. 1,450 which can be rounded up to Rs. 1,500 D
per month would have been the average amount available to the family of
the deceased, i.e., his dependents, namely, appellants herein. It is this
• figure which would be the datum figure per month which on annual basis
would work out to Rs. 18,000. Rs. 18,000, therefore, would be the proper
multiplicand which would be available for capitalisation for computing the E
future economic loss suffered by the appellants on account of untimely
death of the bread winner. As the age of the deceased was 27 years and a
few months, at the time of his death the proper multiplier in the light of
the aforesaid decision of this Court in General Manager, Kera/a State Road
Transport Corporation Trivandrum (supra) would be 15. Rs. 18,000 multi-
plied by 15 will work out to Rs. 2,70,000. To this figure will have to be F
added the conventional figure of Rs. 15,000 by way of loss of estate and
consortium etc. That will lead to a total figure of Rs. 2,85,000. This is the
amount which the appellants would be entitled to get by way of compen-
sation from respondents nos.1 and 2 subject to our decision on point no.2.
G
Point No. 2

So far as the question of contributory negligence of deceased Rama
Kant is concerned, the topography of the place of accident is to be kept in
view. The accident occurred in the city of Gwalior on the cross section of H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A two roads. One road was proceeding from Gola-Ka-Mandir situated on the
western side and was running eastwards towards another locality known as
).
.I &K. It was thus running from west to east. It was 25 ft, broad. It was
known as Road No.7. A narrow gauge railway line was running parallel to
the said road on its southern side. At one place on the northern border of
B road no.7 converged another public road from north to south. The said
road was approaching Chandra Prasth Colony on the southern side. It is
an admitted position on record that the offending truck driven by respon-
dent no.2 was plying on road no.7 and was coming from Gola-Ka-Mandir
side and was proceeding towards J &K locality situated towards eastern
c side. Thus the truck was coming on road no.7 from west to east. So far as
the deceased was concerned he was coming on a scooter along with the
pillion rider on the north-south road leading towards Chandra Prasth
Colony. It is also on record that at the intersection of the north-south road
on which the scooter was travelling the deceased was plying his scooter
from north towards south. It had also been found from the record that at
D
the intersection of north-south road with road no.7 the scooterist Rama
Kant had already entered the intersection and had come almost half way
so far as the breadth of read no. 7 was concerned. In other words the
scooterist had already entered and intersection and was on the middle of
the said intersection when the truck coming from the west dashed with the
E scooter. Evidence of appellants-witness no.7 Ramji Sharma shows that
after Rama Kant had crossed the centre of road no.7 the offending truck
coming from the western side came with speed and dashed with the
scooter. The result was that the right side of the scooter dashed with the
left side front wheel of the truck. Witness Ramji Sharma, appellants-wit-
F ness no. 7 was the pillion rider on the scooter. Therefore, he was in the best .,
position to depose as to what had actually happened on the spot. Witness
Ramji Sharma stated that while proceeding from north to south on the
Chandra Prasth Colony road deceased Rama Kant had already sounded
the horn when he entered the intersection and he had also given a hand
G signal to indicate that he intended to go across road no.7 for approaching
the southern side of road no. 7 having entered from the northern side of
the intersection. That at the relevant time there was no other truck on read
no.7 running from west to east. The exact spot of the accident on the
intersection of road no.7 with the north-south Chandra Prasth Colony road
H also appears to have been well established on the record of the case. It has
~·
-(

SARLADIX!Tv. B. YADAV [S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] 45

been brought out in evidence that Rama Kant's scooter had a coat of green A
paint and it was the left side of the truck's bumper and the truck's left front
wheel' surface that showed green paint marks. The left head-light of the
truck 1was also found damaged after the accident. There was no evidence
that right side of the bumper of the truck bore any green paint marks or
any damage as a result of the collision between the truck and the scooter. B
WitneSs Ramji Sharma did not appear ·ta have received any serious injuries.
This was apparent from his statement that he had been in his senses right
from tfie time he was lifted off the road upto the time he was removed in
a car t~ the hospital. Dr Jain, Appellants-witness no.3 who had performed
post-mortem on the deceased had depo.sed that he had found five ante- C
mortem external .injuries on the dead body of the deceased and they were
all on his right side. There was abrasion on the right temple and the righi
side of ihe face. There was another abrasion on the right side of the chest
and the (right shoulder with fracture on the upper half of the right humerus.
There was an abrasion on the right side of the waist. There was another
abrasion over right thigh and right knee. The last abrasion was on the right D
leg and the right ankle with fracture of the femur near the knee joint. This
clearly indicated that the impact of the front left wheel of the truck was
on the right side of the scooter driver, Rama Kant. That clearly showed
that Rama Kant was travelling inside the intersection on the north-south
road from north to south when the truck which came from the western E
side dashed with the scooter and threw off the scooter driver and the
pillion rider. It is, therefore, clearly established that while Rama Kant's
scooter had crossed the centre of road no.7 the offending truck coming
from the western side dashed with the right side of the scooter which was
proceeding across that road and was going towards the southern side of F
the intersection having entered the same on the northern side of road no.7
So far as the exact place of impact on the intersection is concerned we may
note that the photographs Ex.P/11, P/8 and Pn indicated that the scooter
lay at the distance of 11 ft. from the northern border of road no.7. As seen
earlier the width of the road was 25 ft. The scooter was lying almost .
lengthwise on the road with its rear wheel towards the west, that is, towards G
the direction from which the truck had come and had approached the
intersection. The scooter's front portion was towards the west and its
underside was towards the south. The photographs also showed that the
dead body of Rama Kant was lying slightly diagonally across the width of
the road. The head was pointing slightly to the south-west of the centre of H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A the road. The distance between the scooter and the dead body was 6 ft. In
other words any one walking from west to east on road no. 7 would have
first passed by the dead body of Rama Kant and then would have ap-
proached the fallen scooter. It was, therefore, clearly established that the
collision between the truck and the scooter had occurred somewhere near
B the centre of road no.7. lt showed that the scooter had already entered the
intersection from the northern border of road no.7, had travelled upto 11
ft, across the width of the road at the said intersection and but for the
accident it would have travelled further south and would have passed
through the southern outlet of the intersection. It, therefore, becomes
apparent that when the scooterist had entered the intersection from the
C northern side and had covered almost half the distance of the width of that
intersection the offending truck came from the western side and dashed
against the scooter and threw it off along with the driver and the pillion
rider. That indicated how fast the truck would have been driven from west
to east on the main road and because of that speed the scooterist who had
D already crossed half the width of the road, was thrown off. That also
indicated that the driver of the truck, respondent no.2 had not cared to see
the scooterist who had almost reached half way across his path while he
was proceeding from west to east on road no.7 and without caring for the
safety of the scooterist who would have been clearly visible to him in the
E broad day light while he was coming from the western side of the road and
without least bothering for the safety of the scooterist crossing the inter-
section. He almost ran over the scooter and threw it off. It is true that the
injuries noted by the doctor in the post-mortem report did not indicate that
the deceased was run over by the wheel of the truck but the severe impact
caused by the accident all on the right side of the body of the deceased
F indicated the fierce collision between the scooter and the front left wheel
of the truck. There would thus be two types of negligence on the part of
the truck driver, (i) he was proceeding with very high speed even though
he was approaching an intersection on that road; and (ii) the driver die!
not care to look out for the safety of the scooterist who had already crossed
G half of the intersection and almost come to the middle of the intersection
and who would naturally be very much visible to the truck driver coming
from the western side and proceeding towards the cast. The driver, respon-
dent no.2, did not care even to slow down his speed. If he had done so,
the unfortunate accident would not have taken place. This showed that
H either he did not notice the scooterist who had come almost half way
>·,. ·•.;
SARLADIX!Tv. R YADAV(S-R MAJMUDAR,1-] 47

diogonally across the breadth of the road at the intersection or that he A
might not have cared for the safety of the scooterist who had come across
J..
his path. This was the most reckless and unsafe driving resorted to by
respondent no.2. The fact that even after the accident he had not slowed
down his vehicle and went on driving with great speed, is fully established
by the further fact that even after the accident, his vehicle could not stop B
there and then but had travelled further and had gone upto 70 ft. further
and had then stopped near the south-eastern side of the road after the
collision. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that respondent no.2 while
driving fhe offending truck was in a position to see in the broad daylight
the scooterist Rama Kant who had already entered the intersection and
was almost half way in it, still had continued to drive recklessly in a totally C
careless manner. Because respondent no. was not having a driving such
heavy vehicle at the cost of such innocent victims like Rama Kant. Being a
novice he went on driving fast before approaching intersection of road no.7
and could not control his vehicle by stopping it or by slowing it down so
as to avoid collision with th.e scooterist who had come across his way. D
Resultantly he dashed with the scooter in the centre of road no.7 with the
left side front wheel of his truck which hit the right hand side of the
scooterist Rama Kant and his scooter. As seen above having thrown off the
scooterist and the pillion rider respondent no.2 could not control his
vehicle which was in such speed that he could bring it to a halt after E
travelling further to the extent of 70 ft. and then it proceeded towards the
wrong side or the road and halted near the southern side of road no.7 after
the collision. All these tell-talc facts unequivocally point to_ one and only
conclusion that it was the rash and negligent driving by respondent no.2, a
young boy aged 20, who was a novice driver without a licence to drive such F
heavy vehicle, that had caused this unfortunate accident. Deceased Rama
Kant was not at all negligent and had not contributed to the accident save
and except to the extent or bringing his body for being subejcted to the
impact of the on-coming truck. If at all, his only contribution was that he
became a victim of this accident by being on spot on that fateful morning.
It is, therefore, not possible for us to agree with the contention of the G
learned counsel for respondents nos.1 and 2 that deceased Rama Kant had
contributed to the accident by his own negligence to the extent of 75% or
even to the extent of any lesser percentage. On this evidence the High
Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Trial Court that deceased
Rama Kant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 75%. It H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A must be held that deceased Rama Kant was not at all negligent and the
entire cent percent negligence rested on the shoulder of respondent no.2,
driver of the truck. It is also not possible to agree with the contention of
learned counsel for respondents nos.l and 2 that deceased Rama Kant was
guilty of breach of Regulation (7) of Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. That regulation read as under :
B
"7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering a road inter-
section, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give
way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other
case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right
c hand."

On the facts of the present case it is well established from the evidence of
pillion rider Ramji Sharma, appellants-witness no.7 that while entering the
intersection from the northern side of road no. 7 deceased had already
D sounded the horn and had also given a hand signal to indicate that he
intended to go across road no. 7. There was no occasion for him to halt and
give way to the truck coming from the western side and proceeding towards
the eastern side of road no.7 for the simple reason that Rama Kant had
already entered the intersection and had travelled almost half way across
the breadth of road no.7. In the meantime the offending truck came with
E great speed from the western side and dashed against the scooter. Regula-
tion (7) could have been pressed in service against deceased Rama Kant
if it was shown that while entering the intersection, having seen the on-
coming truck from his right hand side he had not taken due precaution.
Such a situation, on the facts of the present case, is found to be absent. On
F the other hand respondent no.2 driving the offending truck on the main
road no.7 from west to east is shown to have committed breach of Regula-
tion (6) of the very same Schedule which read as under :

"6. The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching
a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not
G enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware
that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons
1
thereon.'

Respondent no.2 was required to slow down while approaching the road
H intersection or junction and as he had not done so but went on driving with
SARLADIXITv. B. YADAV[S:B. MAJMUDAR,J.] 49

full speed the offending truck which threw off the scooterist who was A
already in the middle of the intersection, he was guilty of breach of
Regulation (6) of Tenth Schedule and had endangered the safety of the
persons crossing the said road at the relevant time. Consequently the
recklessness and negligence in driving the offending truck at the relevant
time wholly rest on the shoulder of respondeni no.2. Point No. 2 is, B
therefore, answered in the negative. Hence there is no question of slicing
down any amount from the compensation held payable to the claimants as
per our findings on point no.1 above.

Point No. 3

· Now is the time for us to bring down the curtain. In view of our
c:
findings on point nos. 1 and 2 above the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and order passed by the High Court as well as the Claims Tribunal are set
aside. The Claim Petition filed by the appellants is allowed against respon-
dent nos. 1 and 2 who are ordered to pay the total compensation of Rs.
2,85,000. The Claim Petition will stand allowed to that extent. On the said D
awarded amount of Rs. 2,85,000 the respondent nos.l and 2 shall also pay
12% interest from the date of the Claim Petition till payment of the
aforesaid amount to the appellants or its realisation by them. The Claim
Petition will stand dismissed against respondent no.3, the insurance com-
pany. In view of the fact that the success is divided between the parties E
there will be no order as to costs all throughout.

R.A. Appeal allowed.