LexM. MANSOOR & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 421
M. MANSOOR & ANR.
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8612 of 2013)
OCTOBER 03, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Fatal accident - Claim
A
B
for compensation - By parents of deceased - Tribunal granted
compensation by deducting 113 towards personal and living C
expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier of 17 -
High Court reduced the compensation amount by using
multiplier of 12 - Held: In view of the facts that the deceased
was bachelor and the claimants were his parents, deduction
towards personal and living expenses should have been 50%
D
and not 113rd - In view of the age of the deceased at the time
of death i.e. 24 years, multiplier of 18 ought to have been
applied - Compensation amount determined by deducting
50% towards personal and living expenses and by applying
multiplier of 18 - In addition Rs. 1, 00, 0001- paid towards loss E
of love and affection and Rs. 10, 000-1 on account of funeral
and ritual expenses.
Appellants, the parents of the deceased {who lost his
life In motor accident), filed petition u/s.166 of Motors
F
Vehicles Act, clalmlng compensation to the tune of
Rs.28,00,000/-. They pleaded that the accident was
caused due to rash and negligent driving; that the
deceased was 24 years old earning Rs.18, 100/- per
month. Tribunal accepting the case of the appellants,
determined the compensation at Rs.24,65,668/- after G
deducting 1/3rd towards personal and llvlng expenses of
the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17. On appeal
by the respondent-Insurance Company, High Court
421
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 10 S.C.R.
A reduced the compensation amount to Rs.15,14,6481- by
applying multiplier of 12. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Tribunal as well as the High Court
B made a deduction of 113rd only, towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased and the deceased being
a bachelor and the claimants being parents, the deduction
of 50% has to be made as personal and living expenses.
[Para 14] [429-B-D]
c
2. As the age of the deceased at the time of his death
was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been
applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of
the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and the
0 High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down
to the multiplier of 12. [Para 16] [429-H; 430-A]
Amrit Bhanu Shafi and Ors. vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 - relied on.
E
3. Appellants produced the Salary Certificate of the
deceased, which shows that the deceased was earning
Rs.18,100/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken into
consideration the aforesaid income for computing the
compensation. The annual income comes to Rs.
F 2,17,200/-. If 50% of the said income is deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased the
contribution to the family will be Rs.1,08,600/-. At the time
of the accident the deceased was a bachelor about 24
years old hence applying the multiplier of 18, the amount
G will come to Rs.19,54,800/-. Besides this amount the
claimants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each towards the
loss of affection of the son i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.20,64,800/- and
H the claimants are entitled to get the said amount of
M. MANSOOR & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 423
CO. LTD. & ANR.
compensation instead of the amount awarded by the
A
Tribunal and the High Court. They would also be entitled
to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of the filing of the claim petition till realization. [Para 17]
[430-A-E]
B
Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6
SCC 121: 2009 (5)SCR 1098 - relied on.
U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362: 1996
(2) Suppl. SCR 443 - referred to.
Nance vs. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd.
(1951) 2 All ER 448(PC); Davies vs. Powell Duffryn
Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2 (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL) -
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2009 (5) SCR 1098
relied on
Para 13
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 443
referred to
Para 13
(1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC)
referred to
Para 13
(1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)
referred to
Para 13
c2012) 11 sec 738
relied on
Para 15
c
D
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F
8612 of 2013.
From the JudExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.