H.S. AHAMMED HUSSAIN AND ANR. versus IRFAN A. HAMMED AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 09-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.S. AHAMMED HUSSAIN AND ANR. 
v. 
IRF AN A.HAMMED AND ANR. 
JULY 9, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 149(2)-Motor accident-Award of 
compensation-Joint appeal by insured and insurer challenging quantum of 
C compensation-Maintainability of-Held, maintainable-Jn such case Court 
should delete the name of insurer and proceed with appeal of insured 
Second Schedule-Motor accident-Award of compensation-Application 
of multiplier-High Court applied multiplier of 13 for age of 45 years and 14 
for the age of 40 years-Held, the correct multiplier in the age of 45 years 
D is 15 and for 40 years is 16. 
Motor Accident-Compensation-Award of-Interest thereon at the rate 
of 6%-Held, appropriate rate of interest is at the rate of 9%. 
In a petition for claim of compensation by the appellants for the 
E death of their sons, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found from the 
evidence that the income of each of the victim was Rs. 3000 p.m., and 
awarded compensation in favour of the parents of the victims accordingly 
along with interest thereon at the rate of 6%. 
The Respondents i.e. insurer and the insured filed joint appeal before 
F High Court challenging quantum of compensation. High Court disbelieved 
the evidence regarding the income of the victims and found their income 
to be Rs.1500 per month. Under Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988, in selecting multiplier the age of younger out of the two parents was 
taken into consideration and since the age of mother of one of the victims 
was 40, the multiplier applied was 14 and since the age of another victim 
G was 45 the multiplier, in his case was applied as 13. Thus the compensation 
with .regard to both the victims was reduced while the rate of interest was 
maintained at 6%. The court directed that 25% out of the compensation 
was to be paid to the fathers and 75% to the mothers. It further directed 
that the compensation payable to the mothers shall be kept in fixed deposit 
H 
78 
H.S. AHAMMED v. !RFAN AHAMMED 
79 
in nationalized bank for a term of 5 years with liberty to draw interest. A 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that High Court was 
not justified in entertaining and allowing joint appeals by insured and 
insurer challenging the quantum of compensation as insurer was entitled 
to raise only such defences as are enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Act 
and quantum of compensation is not a ground available to the insurer 
under the Section. Therefore, allowing such appeals would defeat the very 
purpose engrafted under the Section ; that the High Court was not justified 
B 
in interfering with the finding of the tribunal regarding income of the two 
victims; that under Second Schedule to the Act, providing compensation 
based on a formula, the multiplier which was applicable was 15 as age of C 
mother of one the victims was 45 years whereas in the case of another 
victim whose mother's age was 40 the correct'multiplier should have been 
16; that the rate of interest should have been 9%; and that the amount of 
compensation payable to the mothers should not have been directed to be 
kept in fixed deposit. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that joint appeal by the insurer as well 
D 
as the insured was not maintainable. In such an eventuality, the course 
which a Court should adopt is to delete name of the insurer from the cause E 
title and proceed with appeal of the insured and decide the same on merit. 
[84-E, FJ 
Chinnama George and Ors. v. N.K. Raju and Anr., [2000) 4 SCC 130, 
distinguished. 
Narendra Kumar and Anr v. Yarenissa and Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 202, 
relied on. 
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v .. Bhushan Sachdeva and Ors., [2002) 
2 sec 265, referred to. 
2. High Court did not find evidence adduced on behalf of the 
claimants reliable and satisfactory, it fixed their income at Rs.1500 per 
month and this being a question of fact, it is not possible to interfere with 
the same especially when it could not be pointed out that there was any 
error therein. [84-G, HJ 
F 
G 
H 
A 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
3. According to the Second Schedule , if the age is above 40 years 
but not exceeding 45 years, the multiplier applicable is 15 and if the age 
is above 35 years but not exceeding 40 years, the multiplier would be 16. 
In the case of compensation to the parents of 'V', multiplier 15 should 
have been adopted instead of 13 and the compens

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