LexRAMESH SINGH & ANR. versus SATBIR SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 959 A RAMESH SINGH & ANR. v. ' SATBIR SINGH & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 545-546 of 2008) B JANUARY 21, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ' c s. 163-A - Appropriate multiplier-At the time of accident deceased son aged 22 years and claimant father 55 years - HELD: Choice of multiplier is determined by age of deceased· or claimant, whichever is higher - Taking the age of father to be 55 years, courts below did not commit any illegality in applying multiplier of 8 - Relief u/s 163-A is not additional but D ·alternate - Second Schedule to the Act can only be used as a guide. In the instant appeals for further enhancement of compensation, filed by the father who was aged about 55 E years at the time of death of his young son, who died in a motor accident, it was contended for the appellants that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court erred in applying the multiplier of 8, and instead, in view of provisions of s.163-A considering the age of the F deceased being 22 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. It was I r • alternatively contended that the age of the mother being 52 years, at that time, at least a multiplier of 11 should have been applied. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The choice of multiplier is determined by ,"t' the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that H 959 RAMESH SINGH & ANR. v. SATBIR SINGH & ANR. 960 ~ was not the contention raised even before the trial court A or before this court. Taking the age of the father to be 55 years, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since he was running 56th .. year of his life. [para 4) [962-G-H] 1.2 The relief uls 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 B has been held not to be additional but alternate. The Second Schedule to the Act is to be used not only referring ,. to age of victim but also other factors relevant therefor. Complicated questions of facts and law arising in accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on c mathematical equations. The Schedule can only be used as a guide. The selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. If a youngman is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with D ~ a high multiplier provided by the Second Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has happened in this case. The Courts below rightly struck the said balance. [para 5) [963-C-G] E New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720; Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385; UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362; Oriental Insurance Co. -i., Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim & Ors. JT 2007(11) SC 113 - relied on. F CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 545- 546 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC APP. Nos. 330- G ..... 331of2006 . ) Manjeet Chawla for the Appellants. Praveen Swarup for the Respondents. A 961 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Not being satisfied with the Judgment of the High Court enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the B parents of deceased Banu Pratap Singh have filed these appeals. Deceased Banu Pratap Singh was killed in an accident on 29.3.2004 involving a truck which was being driven by first respondent, Satbir Singh. The truck belonged to Municipal Corporation of Delhi. At the time of his death, Bhanu c Pratap Singh was about 22 years of age. It was claimed by the first appellant, i.e., the father of the deceased that he was 41 years old at the time of death of Bhanu Pratap Singh. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the annual loss of dependency regarding Bhanu Pratap Singh D could be taken at Rs.28,992/-. It was further held that Appellant No.1, the father of the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident and that is how the Trial Court applied the multiplier of 8 years
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.