NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GOPALI & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 05-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 834 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
GOPALI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal ·No. 5179 of 2012) 
JULY 05, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
s. 166 - Motor accident - Death of victim - Claim for 
compensation - Computation of income of deceased -
Consideration of increase in income - Held: High Court was 
justified in determining the amount of compensation by 
o granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased - In 
the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22 
years and during that period his salary would have certainly 
doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary 
as bonus per year - Insurer's challenge to the impugned order 
E is meritless. 
Motor accident - Death of victim - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal expenses - Held: Single Judgf! · 
of the High Court did not commit any error by not following 
F the rule of 1 !3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of 
the deceased - In the instant case, the deceased had 8 
dependents including four sons and one daughter - Where 
the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more 
having an income of Rs.3,0001- to Rs.5,0001-, it is virtually 
G impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total 
income upon himself. 
H 
Motor accident - Compensation - Multiplier - Deceased 
aged about 36 years - Held: Tribunal and High Court were 
834 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 
835 
ORS. 
not right in applying the multiplier of 10 - They should have 
A 
adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining 
the amount of compensation - This is a fit case in which the 
Court should exercise power under Art. 142 of the Constitution 
and .enhance the compensaUon determined by High Court, 
by applying appropriate multiplier - With a view to do complete 
B 
justice to the claimants, the· amount of compensation is 
redetermined by applying the multiplier of 15 and accordingly, 
the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 10, 63, 0401 
-, as detailed in the judgment - The claimants shall also get 
interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per C 
annum from the date of filing the claim petition - Interest -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. 
COSTS: 
D 
Payment of compensation delayed - Compensation 
awarded by Tribunal enhanced by single Judge of High Court, 
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Held: Since the 
insurer had· enjoyed the ex-parte interim order pa~sed by 
Supreme Court for a period of five years, it is directed to pay 
E 
cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants. 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: 
··Appeal by insurer challenging the compensation 
awarded by Tribunal, enhanced by single Judge of High Court 
F 
and confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Ex-parte 
interim order - Court expressed its concern with regard to the 
ex-parte interim order continuing to operate for years together 
without the matter being listed for effective hearing - Interim 
order - . Ex-parte interim order - . Practice and procedure . 
G' 
. Santosfi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and 
others 2012(3) SCR 1178 ~ relied on 
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sar/a 
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (5) SCR 1098 = 
(2009) 6 SCC 121; UP. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory 
2004 (2) SCR 369 = (2004) 2 SCC- 473 - referred to. 
B 
0 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
(1994) 2 sec 116 
referred to 
para 7 
2009 (5 ) SCR 1098 
referred to 
para 14 
(1996) 4 sec 362 
referred to 
para 15 
2004 (2 ) SCR 369 
referred to 
para 15 
2012(3) SCR 1178 
relied on 
para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5179 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dat~ 22.03.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at JaQlur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. 
E Special Appeal No. 49 of 2005. 
F 
Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing 
G constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary, aided by 
a proficient bar and supported by the State. However, the 
Courts and Tribunals, which the citizens are expected to 
approach for redressal of their grievance and protection of their 
fundamental, constitutional and legal rights, are beset with the 
H problems of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.