M. H. UMA MAHESHWARI & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 12-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
M. H. UMA MAHESHWARI & ORS.
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 2020)
JUNE 12, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 166 – Fatal accident – Of 50 year old person – Claim for
compensation – Tribunal while awarding compensation applied
multiplier of 13 and gave 30% towards future prospects – High
Court reduced the compensation amount by granting 15% towards
future prospects – However, High Court maintained multiplier of
13 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since High Court
maintained the multiplier of 13, there was no justification for
reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future
prospects – Compensation awarded by Tribunal was just and
reasonable – Compensation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the
deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the
multiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The High
Court, while maintaining the multiplier of 13 has reduced the
compensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged
50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such the
compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of
dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%.
So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is
concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same.
When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of
40 to 50 years, the High Court has committed error in granting
only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. Considering
the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is
maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification
for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future
prospects. [Para 8] [263-C-F]
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 259
259
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 –
relied on.
2. If the age of the deceased is in the age  group of 40 to
50 years as regards future prospects addition should be 30%.
For application of multiplier, the High Court has also accepted
the age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In that
view of the matter, there is no reason for reducing the
compensation by granting future prospects at 15% only. In
absence of any challenge to the findings recorded by the High
Court confirming the application of multiplier of 13, the High
Court has committed error in reducing the compensation on
account of loss of dependency. For loss of love and affection,
when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of
consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not
entitled for another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at the
same time though the appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, only
an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards
the respective heads. Taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/-
ought not have been reduced by the High Court. Therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and
the same was interfered with by the High Court without any valid
grounds. [Paras 8 and 9] [263-G-H; 264-A-D]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 –
followed.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
Para 8
[2017] 13 SCR 100
followed
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2558
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2017 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
4903 of 2016 (MV-D).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Luv Kumar for M/s. Devasa
& Co., Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the claimants in a claim petition
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the
Act’) in MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short,
‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed in
Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 by the High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru.
3. Necessary facts in brief are as under :
The deceased S.T. Devaraju was the husband of first appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.