P. S. SOMANATHAN AND ORS. versus DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 17-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 367 
P. S. SOMANATHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1891 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 166 and 163A - Motor 
accident - Compensation claim - Quantum of compensation 
A 
B 
- Fixation of - Appropriate multiplier - In the present case, 
C 
the original claim petition had been filed by the mother and 
brother of the deceased and the deceased was 33 years of 
age when he died in the accident - The deceased was looking 
after the entire family - Tribunal calculated compensation by 
considering a multiplier of 16 - High Court, however, held that 
D 
the deceased's mother was the real legal representative and 
others could not claim to be the legal representatives of the 
deceased, and accordingly reduced compensation by 
applying a multiplier of 5 - Held: The High Court took a very 
technical view in the matter of applying the multiplier - The . E 
High Court could not have kept out of its consideration the 
claim of the daughter of the first claimant, since later the 
daughter was a/so impleaded in the claim petition ..... 
Reasoning of the High Court not correct in view of the ratio in,, · 
Sar/a Verma's case - Following the same, the High Court 
F 
should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the 
age of the deceased - Judgment of the High Court set aside 
and the award of the Tribunal restored. 
A 33 year old unmarried man died due to injuries 
sustained in an accident when a lorry suddenly hit him 
G 
while he was walking on the Highway. The lorry was 
insured with the first respondent and was owned by the 
second respondent. 
367 
H 
• 
368 
SL'PREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants, who are family members of the 
deceased, filed claim petition before the Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal (MACT) under Section 166 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs.1, 75,000/-
as 
compensation. The original claim petition was filed by the 
B mother and brother of the deceased. Later on, the 
daughter of the first claimant was also impleaded in the 
claim petition. The MACT concluded that the accident had 
occurred in view of the rash and negligent driving of the 
second respondent; that the monthly income of the 
c deceased was Rs.1,200/- and that he had been looking 
after the entire family. By applying a multiplier of 16, the 
MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,71,600/-
together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and cost of 
Rs.1,500/-. The first respondent appealed against the 
0 judgment of the MACT before the High Court. The High 
Court held that the mother of the deceased was the real 
legal representative and others could not claim to be the 
legal representatives of the deceased, and accordingly 
applied a multiplier of 5 and thus reduced the 
E compensation to Rs.85,000/- along with interest at the 
rate of 12% p.a. Hence the present appeal against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: In the present case, the claimants had filed for 
compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1988. The original claim petition had been filed by the 
mother and brother of the deceased and the deceased 
was 33 years of age when he died in the accident. For 
G the purpose of calculating the multiplier, the High Court 
held that mother was the real legal representative and 
others could not claim to be the legal representatives of 
the deceased, and accordingly applied a multiplier of 5, 
whereas the Tribunal had calculated compensation by 
H considering a multiplier of 16. The High Court 
• 
P. S. SOMANATHAN AND ORS. v. DISTRICT 
369 
INSURANCE OFFICER 
unfortunately took a very technical view in the matter of A 
applying the multiplier. The High Court cannot keep out 
of its consideration ttie claim of the daughter of the first 
claimant, since the daughter was impleaded, and was 49 
years of age. Admittedly, the deceased was looking after 
the entire family. In determining the age of the mother, the B 
High Court should have accepted the age of the mother 
at 65, as given in the claim petition, since there is no 
controversy on that. By accepting the age of mother at 
67, the High Court further reduced the multiplier from 6 
to 5, even if the reasoning of the High Court is accepted c 
to be correct. The reasoning of the High Court is not 
correct in view of the ratio in Sar/a Verma's case. 
Following the same, the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.