The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Subramanian, while hearing an appeal, opined that multiplier applied to calculate the compensation by the High Court was erroneous as is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects.
Facts
The deceased was riding a two-wheeler when a bus belonging to the respondent dashed into his vehicle. The deceased died instantly. He was 54 years old on the date of accident. Based on income and age, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chennai awarded a compensation of Rs.13,82,628/-.
Procedural History
The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The learned Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.23,062/-. Further observing that the age of superannuation was 58 years, therefore, the dependency was only for a period of 3 years. After deducting income tax @10%, monthly income was assessed as Rs.20,756/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the said amount towards personal expenses and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,60,412/- for the period the deceased was to be in employment and thereafter applied a multiplier of 8 on 50% of the income which he would have earned and awarded a sum of Rs.7,47,216/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation on the conventional heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.13,82,628/-. The High Court affirmed the findings in respect of multiplier of 3 upto the date of superannuation and thereafter multiplier of 8 keeping in view the dependency of life for 10 years. The High Court maintained the amount of compensation on account of dependency but enhanced the compensation under the conventional heads, to award a sum of Rs.15,12,628/-.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The multiplier methodology adopted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court was erroneous and not sustainable. Reliance was placed on Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. that the age of the deceased at the time of death is the base for choosing a multiplier and not the years left in employment.
Respondent: Reliance was placed on Uma Shankar & Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors., Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Kitab Singh & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar & Ors. to support the applicability of split multiplier i.e., multiplier upto the date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“We find that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court in Pranay Sethi.”
Judgment
The Bench, holding method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers clearly erroneous, held the appellants entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.
Case Name: R. Valli & Ors. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1269 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Subramanian
Decided on:10th February 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments