ERUDHAYA PRIYA versus STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 27-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
ERUDHAYA PRIYA
v.
STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2020)
JULY 27, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI
AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166 – Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 – r.3(1) – Appellant
was travelling in a bus owned by the respondent-State Corporation
– The Bus collided with a stationary lorry, which resulted in multiple
injuries to numerous passengers including the appellant – The
injuries to the appellant were grievous – She suffered a disability
of 31.1% of the whole body – The appellant filed a claim petition
u/s. 166 of MV Act r/w. 3(1) of the Rules, 1989 before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal – The MACT found that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver – The MACT
applied a multiplier of 17 to calculate the loss of earning power –
The total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of
Rs.35,24,288/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. payable by the
respondent State Corporation – The High Court reduced the
compensation to Rs.25,00,000/- primarily on the ground that the
multiplier method for quantifying loss of earning power was
wrongly applied – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant claimed
enhanced compensation of Rs. 41, 69,831/- under various heads
along with claiming a revised interest rate @12% p.a. – Held: It is
settled that in the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to
be ‘18’ along with factoring in the extent of disability and same
will apply in the instant case as the age of the appellant was 23
years – Further, while applying the multiplier method, future
prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken
into consideration – The quantification of the same on the basis
of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Case, considering
the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the
present case – The appellant had watered down the interest rate
during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements – Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 299
299
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the
date of payment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There are three aspects which are required to
be examined: the application of multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘18’;
2. The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the
basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others. In para 42 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench
effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as
mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and
Others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another. In the age
group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be ‘18’ along with
factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not
really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State
Corporation and, thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that
the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to
be ‘18’ and not ‘17’. [Para 7(a)] [303-G-H; 304-A-C]
Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent
disability of 31.1%
3. In the factual contours of the present case, if the
disability certificate is examined, it shows the admission/
hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over
1 ½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. [Para 7(b)] [305-
A-B]
4.This Court has also perused the photographs annexed
to the petition showing the current physical state of the
appellant, though it is stated by the respondent State Corporation
that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it
may, this  is the position even after treatment and the nature of
injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case that while applying the
multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and
career are also to be taken into consideration. [Para 7(b)] [305-
D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
5. This Court is thus, unequivocally of the view that there
is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid
principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied
in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as
31.1%. The quantification of the same 

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