Supreme Court of India
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS.versusMOHD. JAMEEL & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 2
- Decided
- 6 January 2009
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of reliable proof of higher earnings, the deceased's monthly income should be fixed at Rs.5,500, leading to a compensation of Rs.4,82,000, and that the claimants bear the burden of proving the deceased's income and future prospects.
Summary
The dependants of a 20‑year‑old businessman who died in a road accident filed a claim under s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation based on a claimed monthly income of Rs.20,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted a monthly income of Rs.7,000, deducted 50% for personal expenses and awarded Rs.6,08,000. The Karnataka High Court reduced the income to Rs.4,000 per month, cutting the award to Rs.3,56,000. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the deceased's earnings lies on the claimants and that the evidence presented (income‑tax return, profit‑and‑loss account, bank statements) did not support the higher figures; it fixed the monthly income at Rs.5,500, resulting in a compensation of Rs.4,82,000 with interest. The Court emphasized that tribunals have wide discretion under s.168 but must base awards on reasonable, proven data and cannot rely on speculation about future business prospects. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, modifying the High Court’s reduction.
Issues considered
- The appropriate quantum of monthly income of the deceased to be used for compensation under s.166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the claimants have discharged the burden of proving the deceased's actual earnings and future earning potential.
- The correct method of deducting personal expenses from the deceased's net income.
- Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation solely on the basis of the income‑tax return.
- The extent of the tribunal's discretion under s.168 and the need for a reasonable nexus between loss and award.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 163A, s. 166, s. 168
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActCompensationFatal accidentDependency lossNet incomeMultiplier methodBurden of proofTribunal discretion
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 14
A SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS.
v.
MOHD. JAMEEL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
JANUARY 6, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 166 and 168 - Claim of . I"'
Compensation - For fatal accident"- Claimant showing
c earning of the deceased as Rs. 20, 000 PM from his business
- Tribunal determining the Compensationtaking the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs. 7, 0001 - and deducting 50%
of the income towards his personal expenses - High Court
reduced the compensation amount taking the income of the
D deceased as Rs. 4, 0001- - On appeal, held : Tribunal has
discretion to determine just compensation - While
" determining just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain
the net income of the deceased available for himself and his
dependants at the time of his death and the amount he was
E accustomed to spend on himself - Onus to prove the earning
of the deceased is on the claimant - Bare assertion to that
effect is not sufficient to discharge the onus - On facts,
claimant failed to prove the income of the deceased as
claimed - Future prospects of expansion of business also not
proved - Compensation determined taking the monthly
F
income of the deceased as Rs. 5, 5001-.
Appellant-dependants of the victim of a fatal
accident, filed a petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 claiming compensation. Their claim was that the
G deceased was 20 years old and was engaged in his own
business and was earning Rs. 20,000 per month. In
support, of the earning they exhibited his current account .,
(Ex. P.38) and the transaction of the deceased with his
client (Ex. P.23) and also income tax return (Ex. P.34)
H 14
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 15
ANR.
declaring income from business as Rs. 43,000/-. Tribunal A
taking the monthly income at Rs. 7,000/ - per month, and
deducting half of the income towards personal expenses
of the deceased, etc. determined the compensation as
Rs. 6,08,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. High Court, in
appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent B
No. 1) , reduced the compensation to Rs. 3,56,000/ -
taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/
- per month on the basis of income tax assessment.
Hence, the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1.1. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the
amount of compensation which appears to be just."
However, the objective factors, which may constitute the D
basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been
indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which
appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal
in the matter of determination of compensation.
Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not E
empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation
arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to
determination of compensation. Similarly, although the
Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to
be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the
F
persons affected nor should it be punitive to the
person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination
of compensation must be based on certain date,
establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred
by the dependents of the deceased and the
compensation to be awarded to them. The amount of G
compensation determined to be payable to the
" - claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by ~ccepted
legal standards. [Para 9] [21-H; 22-A-D]
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and
Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, relied on.
1.2. In the matter of computation of compensation,
there is no uniform rule or formula for measuring the
value of a human life. Though a special provision for
8
assessment of compensation on structured formula basis
for the purpose of a claim petition u/s. 163A of the Act has
been inserted, but no such formula has been laid down
for determination of compensation in a claim petition u/
s. 166 of the Act, though there is no bar in taking the said
C schedule as a guiding factor while determining the just
compensation by applying multiplier method. [Para 11)
(23-A-C]
1.3. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure
o of damages awarded to the dependents is the pecuniary
loss suffered and likely to be suffered by them as a result
of abrupt termination of life. (Para 11) (23-D]
Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. vs. K.I. Bindu and Ors.
E (2005) 8 SCC 473, referred to.
1.4. For arriving at just compensation, it is necessary
to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for
the support of himself and his dependents at the time of
his death and the amount, which he was accustomed to
F spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the basis
of the data, brought on record by the claimant, which
again cannot be accurately ascertained and necessarily
involves an element of estimate or it may partly be even
conjecture. The figure arrived at by deducting from the
G net income of the deceased such part of income as he
was spending upon himself, provides a datum, to
convert it into a lump sum, by capitalizing it by an
appropriate multiplier (when multiplier method is
adopted). An appropriate multiplier is again determined
H by taking into consideration se'/eral imponderable
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 17
ANR.
factors. [Para 13] (24-E-G] A
·'
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. Vs. R.M.K.
Ve/uswami and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1 and General Manager,
Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs.
Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, relied B
on.
1.5. Insofar as the question of earnings of the
deceased is concerned, the onus lies on the claimants
to prove this fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence
before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition c
in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus. In
the present case, the deceased was carrying on a
business. The Return of Income filed by him for the
assessment year 1998-1999 (Ex.P-34) was brought on re
cord along with his monthly turnover and tax paid D
statements submitted to the Commercial Tax Officer
(Ex.P-27). Copies of the current account (EX.P-38)
showing the money deposited in the bank maintained by
the deceased have also been brought on record. The
Return of Income filed on 15th April, 1998 and the E
accompanying document, namely, trading and profit and
loss account for the period ending 31st March, 1998
show a net profit of Rs. 42,996/-. Though the entries in
the current account (Ex. P-38) of the deceased and his
transactions with his client, (Ex.P-23) may not per se be F
cogent evidence to determine the yearly or monthly
income of the deceased from the business(s) he was
carrying on, yet these are some indicators in support of
the appellants' plea that the business income of the
deceased in the succeeding years could be more that G
what was declared for the year ended 31st March, 1998.
-,. . But it is again in the realm of speculation, particularly
when, unlike income from salaries, earnings in a business
may increase with the buoyancy in business and at the
same time may diminish with a recession in trade. (Paras
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A 14 and 15] (25-8-E; 26-8-G]
1.6. As regards the future prospects of the deceased,
except for copies of account of the deceased in the
books of accou.1t of his client, after the death, no other
8 reliable evidence has been brought on record to show
the future plans of the deceased regarding expansion or
diversification of his business. A bare argument that the
deceased had a potential of expanding his business,
cannot be accepted as sufficient material to determine the
C future prospects of the deceased. Having regard to the
material on record, ends of justice would be met if the
income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 5,5001- per month
or Rs. 66,0001- per annum. (Paras 16 and 17] (26-B-E]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.
D (2008) 2 SCC 763, distinguished.
2. On the question of deduction on account of
personal expenses by the deceased, there is no set
formula which could be applied in every case to
E determine as to what should be the deduction on this
account. Said deduction would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no
evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of
any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct
F towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
one-third of the income in case he was married and one-
half (50%) if he was as bachelor. Thus, there is no material
on record warranting interference with the consistent
view of both the courts below on the point. (Para 18]
G (26-F; 27-A]
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 2 sec 763 Distingujshed. Para 7 (
(1994) 2 sec 116 Relied on. Para 10
H and 12
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 19
ANR.
(2oos) a sec 473 Referred to. Para 11 A
AIR 1962 SC 1 Relied on. Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10
of 2009.
B
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2006 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 4276 of
~ 2002(MVC).
Rauf Rahim for the Apellants.
c
Kishore Rawat, M.K. Dua and Dhiraj for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.K. JAIN, J.1. Leave granted.
D
2. Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the
judgment and order dated 26th June, 2006 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, holding that the appellants
herein are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,56,000/ - along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing E
of the claim petition till the date of actual deposit of the
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
'the Act'), as against the compensation of Rs.6,08,000/ - with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (for short 'the Tribunal') vide F
order dated 19th April, 2002.
3. The appellants are the unfortunate parents and the three
· sisters of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of
the lorry, which was involved in the accident and the second
respondent is the insurance company with which the lorry was G
insured. According to the appellants, on 3rd June, 1999 at about
10.00 a.m., the deceased aged about 20 years, was riding on
a tuna moped when the lorry dashed against it and ran over
the deceased, killing him on the spot. It was claimed that the
dec;eased was engaged in his own business under the name H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A and style of Bharath Packing Cases Industry, and was also
dealing in cut size timber.
4. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Act for award of cumpensation on account of the death of the
B deceased. In the petition, it was pleaded that the deceased had
lucrative business and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ - per
month. A claim for compensation of Rs.68,30,000/ - was made.
Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, in
particular the Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the
c assessment year 1998-1999, wherein the total income from
business was declared at Rs.43,000/, the Tribunal rejected the
stand of the appellants/claimants that the earnings of deceased
were Rs.20,000/ - per month. The Tribunal took the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/ - per month. Deducting
0 therefrom half of the said income towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased and taking the age of the younger
of the parents as the basis for determining the multiplier as 14,
the Tribunal quantified the compensation at loss of dependency
as Rs.5,88,000/-. By adding Rs.10,000/ - towards loss of
E expectation of life and Rs.10,000/ - towards funeral expenses
etc., it determined the total compensation as Rs.6,08,000/-. As
noted above, interest at the rate of 6% per annum was also
awarded.
5. Being aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle, respondent
F No.1 in this appeal, preferred appeal to the High Court.
Rejecting the plea of the owner of the vehicle that his lorry was
not involved in the accident, the High Court came to the
conclusion that on the basis of the Income Tax Return the
income of the deceased could not be more than Rs.40,000/ -
G per annum. The High Court, however, calculated the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. The High Court,
however, did not interfere with the deduction towards the
personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal
as also the other amounts awarded to the claimants. The High
H Court, thus, chose to reduce the compensation amount
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 21
ANR. [D.K. JAIN, J.)
}
awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal from Rs.6,08,000/ - A
to Rs.3,56,000/- on the ground that the monthly earnings of the
deceased had been taken on the higher side at Rs.7,000/-.
Feeling aggrieved, the claimanis are before us.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
B
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submitted that the High Court, while taking the monthly income
C>f the deceased at Rs.4,000/ - per month, has ignored other
evidence brought on record by the claimants, namely, the sale
figures of his business from M/s Bharath Packing Cases c
Industry for the period from 1st April, 1998 to 31st March, 1999
as reflected in the ledger accounts of one M/s Vasu Agarbathi
(Ex.P-23), one of the customers of the deceased. It was also
contended that the High Court has also failed to take into
account the future prospects of the deceased, whose business D
was bound to grow with the passage of time. In support of the
proposition that rise in income of the deceased by way of
promotion or otherwise should be taken into consideration for
determining his income earning capacity, reliance was placed
on the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. E
Indira Srivastava & Ors. 1 It was also pleaded that deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should
have been restricted to only one-third of his monthly income .
.. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents submitted that in view of the fact that no oral F
evidence was adduced by the claimants/appellants to prove the
income earning capacity of the deceased, reliance on the
Return of Income, filed by the deceased himself, for determining
his monthly income, could not be faulted and the compensation
determined by the High Court cannot be said to be arbitrary G
and, therefore, no intervention in exercise of power under Article
136 of the Constitution is called for.
1. (2008) 2 sec 763.
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A 9. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an
award determining "the amount of compensation which
appears to be just." However, the objective factors, which may
constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have
not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which
B appears to the just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in
the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the
wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal
to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled
principles relating to determination of compensation. Similarly,
C although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be
allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to
the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s)
liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation
must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus
between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased
0
and the compensation to be awarded to them. In nutshell, the
amount of compensation determined to be payable to the
claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal
standards.
E 10. In General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) &
Ors. 2· M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lo:dship then was) had
observed that the determination of the quantum must answer
what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such
F as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair
thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law
values life and limb in a free society in generous scales". At
the same time, a misplaced sympathy, generosity and
G benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the
compensation. The object of providing compensation is to
place the claimant(s), to the extent possible, in almost the same ,
financial position, as they were in before the accident and not
to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them.
H 2. (1994) 2 sec 176.
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 23
ANR. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
11. As noted earlier, in the matter of computation of A
).
compensation, there is no uniform rule or formula for measuring
the value of a human life. Though a special provision for
assessment of compensation on structured formula basis for
the purpose of a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act
has been inserted in the Act with effect from 14th November, B
1994, but no such formula has been laid down for determination
of compensation in a claim petition under Section 166 of the
-t· Act, though there is no bar in taking the said schedule as a
guiding factor while determining the just compensation by
applying multiplier method. In fact, in Managing Director, c
TNSTC Ltd. Vs. K.I. Bindu & Ors. 3· it has been observed that
the second schedule to the Act may serve as a guide but cannot
be used as an invariable ready reckoner. In a catena of
decisions of this Court, certain broad principles which could be
applied for assessing just compensation have been highlighted.
D
It has been observed that in a fatal accident action, the
accepted measure of damages awarded to the dependents is
the pecuniary loss suffered and likely to be suffered by them
as a result of abrupt termination of life. The question as to what
factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to
a dependent came up for consideration before a three-Judge E
Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
R.M.K. Ve/uswami & Ors.4, with reference to a case under the
Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His
"(
Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus:
F
"In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many
imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the
actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may
depend upon data which cannot be ascertained
accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even G
partly a conjecture. Shortly, stated, the general principle is
that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by
3. (2oos) a sec 4 73.
4. AIR 1962 SC 1. H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the
J
future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary
advantage which from whatever source comes to them by
reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain
to a dependant by the death must be ascertained."
B
12. Taking note of the afore-extracted observations in
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. (supra) in Susamma Thomas
(supra), it was observed that the assessment of damages to
compensate the dependents is beset with difficulties because
from the nature of things, it has to take into account many
C imponderables, e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and
the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have
earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he
would have contributed to the dependants during that period,
the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the
D dependants may not live upto the estimated remaining period
of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might
have got better employment or income or may have lost his
employment or income altogether.
E 13. Thus, for arriving at just compensation, it is necessary
to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the
support of himself and his dependents at the time of his death
and the amount, which he was accustomed to spend upon
himself. This exercise has to be on the basis of the data,
F brought on record by the claimant, which again cannot be
accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an element of
estimate or it may partly be even a conjecture. The figure arrived
at by deducting from the net income of the deceased such part
of income as he was spending upon himself, provides a datum,
G to convert it into a lump sum, by capitalising it by an appropriate
multiplier (when multiplier method is adopted). An appropriate
multiplier is again determined by taking into consideration
several imponderable factors. Since in the present case there
is no dispute in regard to the multiplier, we deem it unnecessary
to dilate on the issue.
H
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 25
ANR. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
;;,
14. In the instant case, the main grievance of the appellant A
is that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of
the deceased from Rs.7,000/ - to Rs.4,000/-. More so, when
the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning
about Rs.20,000/ - per month. It needs little emphasis that
insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is B
concerned, the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by
leading reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A
+ bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient
to discharge that onus: In the present case, as noticed earlier,
the deceased was carrying on a business. The Return of Income c
filed by him for the assessment year 1998-1999 (Ex.P-34) was
brought on record along with his monthly turnover and tax paid
statements submitted to the Commercial Tax Officer (Ex.P-27).
Copies of the current account (Ex.P-38) showing the money
deposited in the bank maintained by the deceased have also
D
been brought on record. The Return of Income filed on 15th
April, 1998 and the accompanying document, namely, trading
and profit and loss account for the period ending 31st March,
1998 show a net profit of Rs.42,996/-. Taking into consideration
the said documents, the Tribuna; took the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.7,000/ - per month. However, the High Court E
felt that in the light of the Income Tax Return, declaring income
from the business carried on by the deceased, the yearly
income of the deceased was not more than Rs.40,000/ - and,
'<:
therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/ - per month to work out F
the loss of dependency. According to the High Court, tl1e monthly
income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.4,000/-
per month.
15. In our view, though the entries in the current account G
(Ex.P-38) of the deceased and his transactions with his client,
..,. namely, Vasu Agarbathi (Ex.P-23) may not per se be cogent
evidence to determine the yearly or monthly income of the
deceased from the business(s) he was carrying on, yet we feel
that these are some indicators in support of the appellants' plea H
"
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.
A that the business income of the deceased in the succeeding
years could be more than what was declared for the year ended
31st March, 1998. But it is again in the realm of speculation,
particularly when, unlike income from salaries, earnings in a
business may increase with the buoyancy in business and at
B the same time may diminish with a recession in trade.
16. As regards the future prospects of the deceased, as
noted above, except for copies of account of the deceased in
the books of account of his client, after the death, no other
reliable evidence has been brought on record to show the future
C plans of the deceased regarding expansion or diversification
of his business. In our view, a bare argument by learned counsel
for the appellants that the deceased had a potential of
expanding his business, cannot be accepted as sufficient
material to determine the future prospects of the deceased. The
D decisions of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellants do not lay down any abstract proposition of law in
this regard, which are otherwise distinguishable on facts.
17. In the circumstances, having regard to the material on
E record, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the income
of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/ - per month or
Rs.66,000/ - per annum.
18. On the question of deduction on account of personal
expenses by the deceased, there is no set formula which could
F be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the
deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that
count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some
statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such
deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon
G the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case,
no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the
income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a
H bachelor. Thus, there is no material on record warranting
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 27
ANR. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
interference with the consistent view of both the courts below A
on the point.
19. In view of the above discussion, the loss of dependency
is determined as Rs.33,000/- per annum and by applying a
multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency is arrived at 8
Rs.4,62,000/-. Adding Rs.20,000/- awarded under other heads,
the quantum of compensation is determined at Rs.4,82,000/-.
The amount shall also carry an interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the .date of the filing
of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. If any amount C
has already been paid or deposited in terms of order passed
by the Tribunal, the same shall be adjusted from the amount now
being awarded. The interest element shall also be worked out
after the said adjustment.
20. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and the D
judgment of the High Court stands modified to the extent
indicated above. No order as to costs.·
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed .
....
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