PUTTAMMA & ORS. versus K. L. NARAYANA REDDY & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 09-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 16 S.C.R. 831 
PUTTAMMA & ORS. 
v. . 
K. L. NARAYANA REDDY & ANR. 
· (Civil Appeal No. 10918 ·of 2013) 
DECEMBER 9, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU 
JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Accidenr claim -
Award of compensation - Use of multiplier method - Selection C 
of mu/tip-lier based on age group of the deceased/victim -
Split multiplier method - Applicability of - Held: The 1988 Act 
does no(envisage application of split multiplier - In absence . 
of any specific reason and evidence on record, Tribunal or 
Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and D 
should apply multiplier as per decision of Supreme Court in 
the case of Sar/a Verma as affirmed in the case of Reshma 
Kumari. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- ss.163A and 166- Principles 
E 
relating to determination of liability and quantum of 
cf;;bmpe(lsation different for claims made uls. 163A and claims · 
'ftlEJde u/s. 166 """ Structured formula as prf:tscribed under the 
'Second Schedule in s. 163A and the multiplier mentioned 
~-. 
:'"' 
' 
:therein not binding for claims uls. 166. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 163A, Second Schedule -
Applicability and purpose of - Discussed. 
F 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 163A, Second Schedule -
Amendment in -Requirement of -
Held: The Second G 
Schedule was enacted in 1994 - It ha$ now become 
redundant, irrational aqd unwo.rkable, due to changed 
scenario including the present cost of Jiving and cu"ent rate 
of inflation and increased life expectancy - Specific direction 
831 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A to Central Government to make proper amendments to the • 
Second Schedule table keeping .in view the present cost of 
living, subject to amendment of Second Schedule as 
proposed or may be made by the Parliament. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 171 - Accident claim -
8 
Compensation - Award of interest - Duty bestowed upon. 
Tribunal and Courts - Held: Under s.171, no rate of interest 
has been fixed and duty is bestowed upon the Tribunal to fix 
the rate of interest - Tribunals and Courts to decide the rate 
of interest after taking into consideration the rate of interest 
C allowed by the Supreme Court in similar case and other 
factors such as inflation, change in economy, policy adopted 
by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the period 
since when the case is pending. 
o 
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988- s.168- Compensation - Grant 
of - Difference between English law and Indian law - Held: 
According to the English Law compensation/ damages are 
payable according to the proportionate loss whereas in India 
compensation is payable which appears to the Tribunal to be 
E just is payable - English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Accident claim -
Compensation - Determination of - Deceased was 48 years 
old and drawing gross salary of Rs. 13,3311- per month and 
paying a sum of Rs.8891- per month towards tax- Decea$ed 
F left behind four dependent family members -
Tribunal 
awarded compensation of Rs. 9. 3 lakhs - High Court 
enhanced the compensation to Rs.11.25 lakhs - On appeal, 
held: Since deceased left behind four dependent family 
members, deduction towards his personal and living expenses 
G should be 114th - In appeal filed by the claimants, High Court 
instead of deciding just compensation allowed meager 
enhancement of compensation - High Court introduced the 
concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier 
system generally used in light of the de'cision in Sar/a Verma 
H case without disclosing any reason - High Court also did not 
. PUTTAMMA & ORS. v. K. L. NARAYANA REDDY & 833 
ANR. 
consider the question of prospect of future increase in salary A 
'of the deceased though it noticed that the deceased would 
have continued in pensionable services for more than 10 
years - When age of the deceased was 48 years at the time 
of death it wrongly applied multiplier of 10 and not 13 as per 
decision in 'Sar/a Verma' - Thus, judgment of High Court 
8 
perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and fit to be 
set aside for having not considered the future prospects of the 
deceased and also for adopting split multiplier method 
against the law laid down by Supreme Court - Claimants 
entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,43 lakhs and also c 
interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. 
from the date of filing of the complaint petition. · 
'R' aged about 48 years, whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.