RAGHUVIR SINGH MATOLYA & ORS. versus HARI SINGH MALVIYA & ORS

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ f 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 379 
RAGHUVIR SINGH MATOLYA & ORS. 
A 
V. 
HARi SINGH MALVIYA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2009) 
-~ 
MARCH 31, 2009 
B 
[S.S. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
s.166 -
Claim petition by relatives of deceased - c 
Compensation - Computation of - Dearness Allowance and 
House Rent Allowance - HELD: Should form part of income 
of deceased for determining the amount of compensation -
+-
Matter remitted to Tribunal to calculate amount of 
compensation taking into consideration the dearness D 
allowance and house rent allowance and to pass the award 
..., 
accordingly . 
In the instant appeal filed by the claimants, the 
question for consideration before the Court was: Whether E 
the dearness allowance and the house rent allowance 
should be taken into consideration for the purpose of 
computing the amount of compensation payable in terms 
of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
Tribunal, the Court 
HELD: The dearness allowance should form part of 
income. The house rent allowance is paid for the benefit G 
of the family members and not for the employee alone. 
-r 
Therefore, 'Dearness Allowance' and 'House Rent 
Allowance' payable to the deceased should have been 
included for determining his income and, consequently, 
379 
-H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A the amount of compensation. It is directed that in 
calculating the amount of compensation, the dearness 
allowance as also the house rent allowance should also 
be taken into consideration. The Tribunal would pass the 
B 
c 
award accordingly. [Para 8 and 1 OJ (383-E-G] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and 
Others (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. 
Ram Prasad Varma & Ors. 2009 (1) SCALE 598, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 2 sec 763 
relied on 
2009 (1) SCALE 598 
relied on 
para 7 
para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
.-
o 2050 of 2009. 
+ 
· From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2007 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur in M.A. 
No. 2177 of 2005. 
E 
Pragati Neekhra and Suryanarayana Singh for the 
F 
Appellant. 
Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem and Sanjay Bhardwaj Law 
Associates & Co., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Whether dearness allowance and house rent allowance 
G payable to a deceased should be taken into consideration for 
the purpose of computing the amount of compensation payable 
in terms of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") is the question involved in this 
appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 
H 14.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 
RAGHUVIR SINGH MATOL YA & ORS. v. HARi SINGH 
381 
-.. f 
MALVIYA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.] 
M.A. No. 2177 of 2005. 
A 
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 
The deceased Puspa Matolya was travelling in a Tata 
Sumo on the fateful day, viz., 30.11.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. 
B 
., 
It dashed against a mango tree. She died on the spot. 
Indisputably, the deceased was an Assistant teacher in a 
primary school. The said school was a State-run one. She was 
to superannuate on 28.02.2011. She at the time of her death 
was aged about 52 years and 9 months. The salary certificate c 
produced on behalf of the claimants - appellants showed that 
she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8611/- (Rs.6050/-
basic pay, Rs.2481/- dearness allowance and Rs.80/- house 
rent) per mensum. 
-+-
The Tribunal, however, taking into consideration only the 
D 
basic pay passed an award awarding compensation for a sum 
of Rs. 3,38,000/-. For the said purpose, the Tribunal applied 
the multiplier of 7. 
An appeal in terms of Section 173(1) of the Act was 
E 
preferred by the appellants. The High Court, by reason of the 
impugned judgment, enhanced the amount of compensation to 
Rs. 5,28,000/- by applying the multiplier of 11. 
Still not satisfied with the quantum of compensation 
F 
' -~ 
awarded in their favour, the appellants are before us. 
4. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the appellants would contend that the Tribunal as also 
the High Court committed a serious error as they failed to take 
into consideration that in computing the net income of the 
G 
deceased, dearness allowance as also the house rent 
-f 
allo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.