MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus LALNIPUII

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1087 · Decided: 14-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MAHARASHTRA STA TE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
LALNIPUII 
DECEMBER 14, 2006 
[DR. ARIRT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.) 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Section 166-Multiplier-Adoption of-Determining factor-When 
claimants are parents of deceased, age of deceased is not relevant and it is C 
the age of claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted 
Section 166-Loss of dependency-Por claiming compensation, claimants 
are required to show that they were dependent on the deceased-On facts, 
deceased was not staying with her parents-Fact that she was contributing to D 
household expenses is not substantiated-Hence, taking into account age of 
. 
parents, monthly income of deceased and other factors like loss of love and 
affection, mental shock, award of Rs.5 lacs appropriate-interest rate of 15% 
awarded by Tribunal is also on higher side and is reduced to 7.5% 
The deceased lost her life in accident. She was traveling in a bus E 
owned by appellant-Corporation. At tfte time of accident; she was 31 years 
old and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6500/-. Her pay was revised as 
per Fifth Pay Commission and on that basis her total emoluments came 
to Rs.9340/-. Her mother filed a claim before MACT for Rs. 15 lacs. MACT 
passed an award of compensation of Rs. ti lacs. Aggrieved appellant filed 
the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Father of the deceased was not the claimant and it was 
only the mother. There was no material adduced before the Tribunal to 
show any dependency on the income of the deceased. The multiplier of G 
17 appears to have been taken on the basis of the age of the deceased. 
The interest rate of 15% fixed is also on the higher side. [1091-B] 
1.2. While parents are the claiman,ts~ the age of the deceased is not 
1087 
H 
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R. 
A relevant and it is the age of the claimants which would determine the 
multiplier to be adopted. On that score it is clear that the Tribunal's 
assessment of the quantum of Award was incorrect [1091-C) 
Jyoti Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr.( [2002) 6 SCC 306; 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mis. Swaranlata Das and Ors., [1993) Supp 2 
B SCC 743 and C.K. Subramania Iyer and Ors. v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Six 
Ors., [1969) 3 SCC 64, relied on. 
1.3. Deceased was the only daughter of her parents and was not 
staying with her parents and there is no material to show that she was 
C contributing to the household expenses. Taking into account the age of 
the claimant and the monthly income as noticed by the Tribunal! a total 
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be payable by the appellant to the respondent 
as Award. This quantum is fixed taking into account the age of the 
claimant, income of the deceased and other relevant factors like loss of 
love and affection, mental shock etc. Interest is fixed at the rate of 7.5% 
D from the date of claim till payment [ 1091-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5823 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2002 .of the Gauhati 
(Assam: Nagaland: Meghalaya: Manipur: Tripura: Mizoram and Arunachal 
E Pradesh) Aizwal Bench at Aizwal in M.A.C. App No. 3 of 1999. 
F 
R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, Savitri Pandey, P.P. Singh 
for the Appellant. 
K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R. Sathish for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed'by a Division Bench 
G of the Guwahati High Court , Aizwal Bench at Aizwal. By the order dated 
18.2.2002, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for default after 
hearing learned counsel for the respondent. Applications filed for restoration 
of the appeal after condonation 6f delay in presentation of the same also 
stood dismissed. 
Though the orders challenged in the appeals related to 
restoration of the appeal dismissed for default, it was felt that no useful 
H purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to High Court for 
MAHARASHTRASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPN.1•. LALNJPUil[PASAYAT,J,) 1089 
consideration on merits. The main ground taken by the appellant before the A 
High Court was that it had no notice of the transfer of the case from the 
Guwahati Bench to the Aizwal Bench and therefore,.there was no appearance. 
This plea was turned down by the High Court on the ground that sufficient 
notice was given to the appellant. Considering the long passage of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.