ANJANI SINGH & ORS. versus SALAUDDIN & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 25-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 846 
ANJANI SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
SALAUDDIN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2009) 
APRIL 25, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s.166 - Fatal accident 
- Compensation - Determination of - Victim-deceased aged 
C 35 years -
Tribunal determined dependency of claimants-
appellants as RS. 31,0001- p.a. and applied the multiplier of 
8 since the deceased died at the age of 35 and the age of 
superannuation in the Air Force was 45-50 years - High Court 
held that the assessment of monthly income based on the 
o salary statement by the Tribunal as RS.40301- was correct, 
however, the finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of 
one-third amount towards personal expenses was erroneous 
and deducted only one-fourth of the oompensation towards 
personal expenses and applied multiplier of 10 - Also 
E awarded RS. 2,5001- towards funeral expenses and 5,000 
towards loss of consortium for the widow of the deceased -
Claimant filed SLP - In view of divergence of view in several 
decisions of Supreme Court, matter was placed before a 
larger Bench which answered the points of reference in favour 
F of the appellants, in the decision reported in *Resh ma Kumari 
- Held: In view of the decision in *Reshma Kumari, the 
appellants were held entitled to future prospects of income -
Taking monthly salary as RS. 40301-, amount towards future 
prospects determined at 50% with monthly income of RS. 
G 40301- came to 20151-, making the total monthly income of 
60451- - Out of RS. 60451-, one fourth i.e. 15111- deducted 
towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the 
decision in **Sar/a Verma case, as the deceased had five 
dependents - The resultant figure came to RS. 45341- p.m. 
H 
846 
ANJANI SINGH & ORS. v. SALAUDDIN & ORS. 
847 
which after multiplying by 12 came to RS. 54,4081- as annual 
A 
income - Applying multiplier of 16, the amount under head 
of loss of dependency came to RS. 8, 70,5281- - Further, RS. 
25,0001- awarded towards funeral expenses, 1,00,0001-
awarded towards loss of love and affection of the children and 
the parents, and further, RS. 1,00,0001- awarded towards loss 
8 
of consortium by the widow of the deceased - A/so, a sum of 
RS. 25,0001- awarded for the cost of litigation - Therefore, the 
total amount came to RS. 11,20,5281- - Appellants having 
already received RS. 5,05,5191- are entitled to the remaining 
amount, i.e. RS. 6, 15, 0091 - - This amount shall bear interest C 
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till 
the date of payment. 
The husband of the claimant-appellant no. 1 aged 35 
years died in a motor accident. The Tribunal held that the 
victim-deceased died due to rash and negligent driving .0 
of respondent no. 1 and awarded Rs. 2.49 lacs as 
compensation. The Tribunal determined the dependency 
of appellants as RS. 31,000/- per annum and applied the 
multiplier of 8 since the deceased died at the age of 35 
and the age of superannuation in the Air Force was 45-
E 
50 years. Aggrieved, the claimant filed an appeal seeking 
enhancement of the compensation. The High Court 
allowed the appeal and held that the assessment of 
monthly income based on the salary statement by the 
Tribunal as RS. 40301- was correct, however, the finding 
F 
of the Tribunal leading to deduction of one-third amount 
towards personal expenses was erroneous. This finding 
of the Tribunal was set aside and only one-fourth of the 
compensation was deducted towards personal 
expenses. The total dependency amount came up to RS. 
G 
3,62,7001- by applying a multiplier of 10. RS. 2,5001- was 
awarded towards funeral expenses and RS. 5,000 
towards loss of consortium for the widow of the 
deceased. In total, a compensation of RS. 3,70,2001- was 
· awarded. Still aggrieved, the claimant filed special leave 
H 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A petition. This Court granted leave, and referred the issue 
to a larger bench. This was in view of the divergence of 
opinion across several judgments of the Supreme Court, 
and this aspect of the matter having not been considered 
in the earlier decisions. The matter was placed .before a 
8 larger Bench which answered the points of reference in 
favour of the appellants, in the decision reported in 
*Resh ma Kumari. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: In view of the decision in *Reshma Kumari, the 
appellants were held entitled to future prospects of 
income considered at the time

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.