LEELA GUPTA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 757 
LEELA GUPTA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5564 OF 2005} 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - s. 11 OA - Fatal accident -
Claim petition - Award of compensation by tribunal -
Enhanced by High Court using multiplier of 16 - High Court 
C 
after reaching the compensation amount, deducting 1/3rd 
therefrom towards imponderability and uncertainty of life - On 
appeal, held: Ascertainment of multiplicand following 
guidelines in Susamma· Thomas* case by High Court, is 
correct - However, capitalization of multiplicand on a 
D 
multiplier of 16 is on higher side -
Therefore, multiplier 
reduced to 14 - Reduction of 1/3rd of the compensation 
amount towards imponderability and uncertainty of life not 
correct - Once the multiplicand and multiplier are ascertained, 
no further deduction needs to be made towards uncertainties 
E 
and other contingencies. 
A 39 years old man died in a motor accident. His wife 
and three children (the appellants) filed a claim petition 
uls. 11 OA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claims tribunal 
held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 
2,61,8001- towards compensation with pendente lite and 
future interest thereon @ 9% p.a .. On appeal, the High 
Court after computing the annual income of the 
deceased, applied multiplier of 16 and came to a sum of 
F 
Rs. 
6,91,200 towards 
compensation. 
However, 
G 
considering imponderability and uncertainty of life, the 
amount reached towards compensation was reduced by 
1/3rd and thus the claimants were awarded Rs. 4,70,000.-
757 
H 
A 
B 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
The question for consideration, in the instant appeal 
was as regards correctness of the decision of the High 
Court in reducing the compensation assessed, by 1/3rd, 
after ascertaining the multiplicand capitalized with the 
multiplier of 16. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The purpose of award of compensation is 
to put the dependants of the deceased, who had been 
bread-winner of the family, in the same position 
C financially as if he had lived his natural span of life; it is 
not designed to put the claimants in a better financial 
position in which they would otherwise have been, if the 
accident had not occurred. At the same time, the 
determination of compensation is not an exact science 
D and the exercise involves an assessment based on 
estimation and conjectures here and there as many 
imponderable factors and unpredictable contingencies 
have to be taken into consideration. The statutory rule 
enacted in Section 11 OB of the Motor Vehicle 1939 Act, 
E (now Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) is 
award of 'just compensation'. [Para 3] [762-D-F] 
1.2 The High Court ascertained the multiplicand or 
the value of dependency at Rs. 3600/- per month keeping 
in view the judgment of Supreme Court in Susamma 
F Thomas* case. The High Court in ascertaining the 
multiplicand has taken into account the guidelines laid 
down in Susamma Thomas* case, which warrants no 
reconsideration. It is neither proper nor desirable to 
recalculate the multiplicand at this distance of time in 
G jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution by 
applying the guidelines indicated in Sar/a Verma** case. 
However, capitalization of multiplicand on a multiplier of 
16 is on the higher side and multiplier of 14, in the facts 
of the instant case, would meet the ends of justice. [Para 
H 8] [771-C-E] 
LEELA GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
759 
PRADESH & ORS. 
1.3 The High Court was clearly in error in reducing 
A 
by 1/3rd the compensation assessed, after ascertainment 
of multiplicand capitalized on a particular multiplier since 
the very method of ascertainment of multiplicand takes 
into consideration many )attars of imponderables and the 
contingencies of the future. Once the multiplicand and 
B 
multiplier are ascertained, the assessment of damages to 
compensate the dependants is arrived at by multiplying 
the two and no further deduction needs to be made 
towards uncertainties and other contingencies. [Para 9] 
[771-F] 
C 
1.4 The compensation awarded by the High Court in 
the sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 6,04,800/-
which is fair, just and equitable. The appellants shall also 
be entitled to 9% simple interest per annum on the 
enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition 
D 
until the date of its actual payment. [Para 

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