MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL versus SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 15-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL 
v. 
SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC. 
April !5, 1977 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
627 
Reasonable prophecy, principle of-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 1 lOB 
-Award of conzpensation-Death of, a child and also of earning wife in _an 
accident-Claimant husband not dependant on wife's income and remarrying 
within 11 months-Assessment of damages should be based 011 the principles 
of rec.jonable prophecy Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Section IA. 
Bus accident-Victinz boy aged about four years coming fro1n a well-to-do 
fa1nily-Disabled by a compound fracture of right tibia and fabula lower third 
near ankle joint-Award of compensation of Rs. 20,000 as enhanced by the 
lligh Court by way of damages is proper-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 
llOR. 
In a bus accident on June 23, 1961, one Mrs. Usha Kotasthane and her one 
year old son died. 
One Sailesh Kumar, a boy of about four years coming 
from a well-to-do family was disabled due to a compound fracture of his right 
tibia and fabula lower third near the ankle joint. 
Sudhakar Kotasthane, the 
huiband of the deceased and respondent No. I in C.A. 2254 of 1968 and Smt. 
Indu Bala. Bhandari, mother of Sailesh Kumar and respondent No. 1 in C.A. 
2255 of 1968 applied to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior for 
compensation. 
The Tribunal took into consideration (i) the loss of life of 
Sudhakar's wife which resulted into conditions of inconvenience, suffering, 
shock, derangement in house and the life for a period of nearly 11 months 
i.e., till he remarried and (ii) The fact that Mrs. Usha WREi working as Physical 
Instructress in a school getting a salary of 
Rs. 190/- p.m. in the scale of 
Rs. 150-10-250 and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation as 
against the cla·im of Rs. 75,0001- computed on the deceased's earnings. The 
Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 
10,000/~ as damages and Rs. 890/- as 
special damages to Smt. Indubala. Both the respondents and the a_.ppellant pre-
ferred appeals to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal. ·The High 
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- in the case of Sudhakar and 
to Rs. 20.000/- in the case of Indubala. 
Allowing the appeal in C.A. No. 2254 of 1968 and dismissing t.he appeal 
in C.A. No. 2255 of 1968, the Court. 
HELD : (I) A method of assessing damages usually followed in England 
is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and "to arrive at a 
total aw~ .. rd by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual 
'dependency' by a number of year's purchase", that is. the number of years 
that benefit was expected to last taking into consideration the imponderable 
factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand. 
The hu~band may 
not be dependant on the wife's income, the ba.sis of assessing the dam~ges 
payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. [631 AB] 
Rule in Mallet v. Mc Monga/e 1970 (A.C.) H. L. 166 at 174 quoted with 
approval. 
P. B. Kadar v. Thatchamma AIR 1970 Kerala 241, a·pproved. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
In assessing damages certain other factors have to be taken note of such 
a~. the uncertainties of life and the fact of accelerated 
payment-th~t the 
H 
husband would be getting a lump sum payment "'hich but for his wife's death 
would have been available to him in driblets over a number of years. Allow· 
ance must be made for the uncertainties and the total figure sCaled down accord-
ingly. The deceased might not have been able to earn t!ll the age of retirement 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 3 S.C.R. 
for some reason or other, like illness or for having to spend more tin1e to look 
after the family which was expected to grow. 
Thus, the amount assessed has 
to be reduced taking into account these imponderable factors. 
[630 G-H] 
In the instant case, the deceased had 35 years of service before her when 
she died. 
The claimant's loss reasonably works out to ·Rs. 50/- a month i.e., 
Rs. 600/- a year. 
Keeping in mind all the relevant factors and conungenc1es 
and taking 20 as the suitable n1ultiplier, the figure comes to Rs. 12,000. The 
Tribunal's award cannot, therefore, be challenged as too -low though it was 
not based on proper grounds. The High Court was alSo not right in estimating 
the damages at Rs. 50,000/- in the manner it did. 
[631 BC] 
C.A. 2255 of 1968 : 
Though the possibility \\'a~ there, in the i

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