FAKEERAPPA AND ANR. versus KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 13-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
FAKEERAPPA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Death caused-
Compensation--Claim for-Award by Tribunal using multiplier of 18, deducting 
50% of income as personal expenditure with 6% interest rate-Appeal for C 
enhancement dismissed by High Court-Appeal questioning percentage of 
deduction and rate of interest-Insurer questioned the multiplier-Held: 
Deduction of personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigidformula-
In facts of the case the deduction restricted to one third of income-Since the 
questions of interest rate and multiplier not raised before High Court, the 
same not liable to be interfered with-Practice and Procedure. 
D 
Appellants 1 and 2-parents of the deceased filed claim petition for 
compensation after death of their 27 years old son in a vehicular accident. 
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded compensation using multiplier 
of 18, after deducting 50% of the income for personal expenses, with 6% 
interest rate. Appeal for enhancement of the compensation, was dismissed E 
by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that deduction pf 50% 
of the income and 6% rate of interest were not justified. 
Respondent contended that there was no rigid formula for quantum F 
of deduction; that as the rate of interest was not challenged before High 
Court, the same could not be challenged for the first time before Supreme 
Court; and that multiplier of 18 was on the higher side. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal 
expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal 
application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. Taking into 
account special features of the case, it would be appropriate to restrict 
369 
G 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income. 
1371-GI 
2. Since there was no question raised about the correctness of the 
rate of interest before the High Court. There is no scope for interference 
with the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any 
B challenge to it before the High Court. 1372-A) 
3. Though the multiplier adopted appears to be slightly on the higher 
side, the plea taken by the insurer cannot be accepted as there was no 
challenge by the insurer to the fixation of the multiplier before the High 
C Court and even in the appeal filed by the appellants before the High Court 
the plea was not taken. 1371-HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 009 of 
2004. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.2002 of the Kamatka High 
Court in M.F.A.No. 2645 of 2001 MVC. 
Ms. Kiran Suri for the Appellants. 
Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, P.P. Singh (NP) and Debasis 
E Misra (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellants were the parents of one Yallappa Angadi (hereinafter referred 
F to as 'deceased') who died in a vehicular accident. The appellant No. I filed 
a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') in 
the Court ofFirst Additional District Judge and M.A. C.T., Dharwad (in short 
the 'Tribunal') claiming compensation. In the Claim Petition the appellant 
No. 2 herein, i.e. the mother of the deceased was added as a formal party-
G respondent No. 5. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged 27 years 
at the time of accident. It accepted that the deceased was getting Rs.2000 
p.m. On that basis to work out loss of dependency multiplier of I 8 was 
adopted after deducting 50% of the income for personal expenses. A total 
sum of Rupees two lakhs with 6% interest per annum from the date of 
application was awarded as compensation. 
H 
< 
-~. 
·-
-
-
-
FAKEERAPPA v. KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY [PASAYAT, J] 
37] 
An appeal was preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Act A 
praying for an increase of the compensation: The High Court by the impugned 
judgment found no merit and dismissed the same. 
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted 
that two points fall for adjudication. Firstly, whether the deduction of half of 
the monthly income for personal expenditure is justified, and secondly whether B 
the award of 6% interest per annum is justified. 
Though the respondents have been served notice, on

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