R. VALLI & ORS versus TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 10-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 570
570
R. VALLI & ORS
v.
TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Fatal accident – Compensation –
Multiplier – Deceased was aged 54 years on the date of accident –
Tribunal applied multiplier of 3 upto the date of superannuation
and thereafter multiplier of 8 keeping in view the dependency of
life for 10 years – High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal – On
appeal, held: In Pranay Sethi, it was held that it is the age of the
deceased which is basis for applying suitable multiplier and that
the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future
prospects – The future prospects were held to be 15% in respect of
a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years – Thus, the method of
determination of compensation applying two multipliers is erroneous
and runs counter to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi,
affirming the judgment in Sarla Verma – Since the deceased was 54
years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier
would be 11 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma
approved in Pranay Sethi.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In Pranay Sethi, this Court held that the age of
the deceased is the basis for applying suitable multiplier and that
the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future
prospects. The future prospects were held to 15% in respect of
a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years. Suitable multiplier
is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms
of para 59.7 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi. [Paras 7, 9]
[574-E, G; 575-A]
Uma Shankar & Ors. v. Revathy Vadivel & Ors. 2014
SCC OnLine Mad 846; Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. v.
Sh. Kitab Singh & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2843;
Union of India & Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar & Ors.
2000 SCC OnLine Kar 406– not good law.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
2. The method of determination of compensation applying
two multipliers is clearly erroneous and run counter to the
judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, affirming the judgment in
Sarla Verma. Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date
of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 as per
the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma approved by this Court
in Pranay Sethi. [Para 11][575-D-E]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 –
followed.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR
1098; Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.
(2013) 9 SCC 65 : [2013] 2 SCR 706 – relied on
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alia
Satwinder Kaur & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410
Case Law Reference
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
Para 5
[2013] 2 SCR 706
relied on
Para 6
[2017] 13 SCR 100
followed
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1269
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.2982 of 2014.
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Advs. for the Appellants.
Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, D. Kumanan, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The legal heirs of deceased V. Rajasekaran are in appeal herein
being aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras dated 7.11.2017 granting a compensation of Rs.15,12,628/-
along with an interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of
R. VALLI v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORP.  LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
realization on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle
accident on 22.02.2011.
2. The deceased was riding a two-wheeler when a bus belonging
to the respondent dashed into his vehicle. The deceased suffered head
injuries and died instantly. He was born on 11.4.1956 and was 54 years
old on the date of accident. On the basis of income and age, the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Chennai1 awarded a compensation of
Rs.13,82,628/-.
3. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the bus driver. The appellant examined PW-3, the
Assistant Manager of M/s Areva T & D India Limited. He deposed that
the deceased was paid salary of Rs.23,062.30. The salary certificate
was produced as Ex.P.9. The learned Tribunal assessed the income at
Rs.23,062/-. Further observing that the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.