MG. DIR., BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TPT. CORP. versus SAROJAMMA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 22-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 812 
A 
MG. DIR., BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TPT. CORP. 
;.., 
v. 
SAROJAMMA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2897 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 22, 2008 
(S.B.SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
-r- 'I 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 163-A & 166 and 
Schedule-II.· 
c 
Death in accident - Compensation - Determination of -
Held: Quantum of compensation to be determined in terms of 
s. 163-A and as per structured formula in Schedule-If of the 
Act - Ordinarily, one-third of income of the deceased is 
deducted from his total income for calculating compensation 
D to claimant - In the instant case, allegedly, deceased was 
serving as tutor and also admitted in the Army Teachers 
Training Institute, thus, having potential of becoming a teacher 
- Hence, his income as estimated at Rs.3,0001- p.m. cannot 
be said to be on higher side - No reason found to interfere 
E with findings of the High Court in applying multiplier of 15 for 
calculating compensation -
But, the High Court had 
considered irrelevant factors in increasing the rate of interest 
from 7% to 10% - Hence, rate of interest altered to 7% -
Directions issued. 
F 
Principle of just compensation - Applicability of. 
A bus, belonging to the appellant, met with an 
accident. Son of respondent No.1, the claimant, was 
traveling in the bus sustained injuries and later 
G succumbed to the injuries. Respondent No.1 filed a claim 
petition. The Tribunal calculated the compensation for 
loss by applying the multiplier of 16. On appeal, the High 
Court allowed the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 for 
... A 
calculating the compensation but increased the rate of 
H 
812 
---+ 
MG. DIR., BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TPT. CORP. 
813 
v. SAROJAMMA & ANR. 
interest from 7% to 10% on the amount of compensation. A 
Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that there was no evidence to 
show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/-
p.m.; that the age of the claimant being 45 as on the date 
of accident, the High Court committed a serious error in 8 
applying the multiplier of 15 as the deceased was a 
bachelor; that the claimant being his mother, the Tribunal 
as also the High Court should have deducted 50% of the 
amount 
from 
his 
income 
while 
determining 
compensation; and that the High Court committed a C 
serious error in enhancing the rate of interest from 7% to 
10% wherefor no justification has been shown. 
Respondent submitted that keeping in view the fact 
that the mother of the deceased has lost her only son, the D 
Tribunal should have awarded compensation towards 
loss of estate and loss of love and affection; that 
deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is 
applied in all cases; and that keeping in view the fact that 
the accident had taken place in the year 1998, grant of 
10% interest on amount of compensation was wholly E 
justified. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 For invoking the provision u/s.163-A of the 
Motor Vehicles Act, it is not necessary for a claimant to F 
establish any act of negligence on the part of the driver. It 
is not necessary even to plead that the death had occurred 
owing to any wrongful act or neglect or default of owner 
of the vehicle. Quantum of compensation is to be 
determined in terms of the Schedule II appended thereto: G 
(Paras - 5 & 6) (817-B, C, DJ 
1.2 The structured formula as provided in the 
Schedule itself stipulates reduction of income of the 
deceased by one-third in consideration of the expenses H 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A which he would have incurred towards maintaining 
>- < 
himself, had he been alive. Ordinarily one-third should be 
deducted from the income of th' deceased and not half 
thereof. (Para - 7, 8) [817-E, F, G] 
B 
1.3 For determining the amount of compensation, the 
most relevant factor is the income of the deceased. The 
+- -<. 
deceased was a tutor, who was admitted in the Army 
Teachers Training institute. He had t~e requisite potential 
of becoming a teacher. His income, thus, having been 
estimated at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. cannot be said to be on a 
c very high side. (Para - 8) [817-G; 818-A] 
2.1 What should be the legal principle on which the 
principle of just compensation should be worked out had 
been the subject matter of various decisions of this Court. 
D This court in cases after cases noticed that the principles 
on which the multiplier method was developed has been 
given a go-by. In many cases, a hybrid method based on 
the subjectivity of the 

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