LexLAXMI DEVI & OTHERS versus MOHAMMAD TABBAR & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 436 A LAXMI DEVI & OTHERS V. MOHAMMAD TABBAR & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2008) B MARCH 25, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor accident - Death caused of 35 years old man - Claim for compensation - c Claimants were his wife and 4 minor daughters - Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15, 0001- using multiplier of 16 - Rate of interest on compensation directed at the rate of 6% -- High Court increasing the notional income to Rs. 36, 0001- while reducing D the multiplier to 12 - On appeal, held: In view of the age of the deceased, High Court 17.ot right in reducing the multiplier - However, in view of the fact that notional income was increased and rate of interest was only 6%, multiplier of 14 would be appropriate. E 'R' aged 35 years, died in an accident. His wife and daughters (appellants) filed claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. They claimed the earning of the deceased to be 4200/- per month. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of notional F income of Rs. 15,000/- prescribed in Second Schedule u/ s 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The multiplier of 16 was used in working out the compensation amount. Interest on the compensation was directed at 6% per annum. In appeal, High Court increased the notional income to Rs. G 36,000/-, but reduced the multiplier to 12. Interest rate was confirmed. Hence the present appeal by the claimants. Allowing the appeal, the Court ,,_ HELD: High Court has erred in bringing down the ... ~ H 436 LAXMI DEVI & OTHERS v. MOHAMMAD TABBAR & 437 ANOTHER [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.] j multiplier to 12. In the present case, the deceased was 35 A years old. The claimants are his wife and four minor daughters. Even as per the Second Schedule the multiplier in case of the persons between 35 to 40 years is 16. In the present case the rate of interest granted is only 6% considering the general rate of interest prevalent B in 2004. Therefore, the proper multiplier would be 14 as the value of the notional income has been increased. [Para 7) [441-B, C & DJ TN. Transport Corporation Ltd. v Rajapriya 2005 (6) SCC 236; G.M. Kera/a SRTC v Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC c 1760; UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra 1996 (4)SCC 362;Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 (1) All ER 657 (HL); Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd., 1951 (2) All ER 448 - referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2090 D of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in A.O. No. 154 of 2006. Yunus Malik, Abhishek Vikas, Rani Kishore and Prashant E Chaudhary for the Appellants. Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed by the widow and five children of one Rajendra Singh who died in an accident on 12.4.2004 when he was riding on his bicycle and was given a dash by the G offending vehicle, a Canter Truck bearing Registration No.UA- 04-1486. Rajendra Singh died on the spot. The driver of the ....... -- offending vehicle was caught on the spot. The claimants, therefore, filed the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis that Rajendra Singh used to earn H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A Rs.140/- per day and Rs.4200/- per month and that his age at ... the time of accident was barely 35 years. In support of the claim, three witnesses including Laxmi Devi, the wife of the deceased were examined and the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, held that the deceased Rajendra Singh died on account of the B injuries sustained by him in the accident on 12.4.2004 which accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As regards the income, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in Second Schedule under Section 163-A c of the Motor Vehicles Act. After deducting 113rd of the said amount as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month and by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to D Rs.1,60,000/-. The other claims were also awarded being Rs.2,000/- for f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.