SANTOSH DEVI AND ORS. versus MAHAVEER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 09-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
SANTOSH DEVI AND ORS.
v.
 MAHAVEER SINGH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7279  of 2018)
AUGUST 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
 DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Death due to motor
accident in 1992 – Claim of appellants that the deceased was in the
business of selling desi ghee and namkin bhujia and his monthly income
was Rs.3,500/- – Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.1,200/- p.m. and awarded Rs.1,15,200/- as compensation after
applying a multiplier of 12 – High Court applied a multiplier of 15
and increased the compensation to Rs. 1,85,000/- – On appeal,
held: Assessment of income by Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- p.m. is on the
lower side – Having due regard to the nature of the business, the
date of accident and all the circumstances of the case, income should
have been assessed at Rs.2,500/- p.m. – Deceased was 38 years
old, hence, the correct multiplier would be 16 – Further, in view of
decision of Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi case an amount of
40% is added towards future prospects – Compensation recomputed
– Appellants entitled to Rs.5,23,000/-.
Person died when his moped was hit by jeep driven by the
first respondent. Appellants, wife and children of the deceased
claimed that his monthly income was Rs.3,500/-. Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/-p.m. and
awarded Rs.1,15,200/- as compensation after applying a multiplier
of 12. High Court applied a multiplier of 15 and increased the
compensation to Rs. 1,85,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The assessment of income by the MACT at
Rs.1,200/- per month was on the lower side. The income should
have been assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month having due regard
to the nature of the business, the date of accident and all the
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 499
  499
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
circumstances of the case. The deceased was 38 years old and
hence the correct multiplier would be 16. In view of the decision
of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi case, an amount of 40
per cent is required to be added towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the recomputed quantum of compensation is
Rs.5,23,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the
date of the petition until payment.  [Paras 6, 7] [501-E-F; 502-C]
National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (13) SCALE 12 – followed.
Case Law Reference
2017 (13) SCALE 12
      followed
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7279
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.740 of 1995.
Sanchal Anand, Devendra Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arises
from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court at Chandigarh in a first appeal against an award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar.
2. The appellants are the wife and children of PuranChand,  who
met with a road accident on 30 December 1992. A government Jeep,
bearing Registration No. HYH-100 dashed into his moped, bearing
Registration No. HR-20-A-7236. Puran Chand sustained grievous injuries
and died.
3. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, seeking compensation of
Rs. 10 lakhs. The MACT found that the Jeep was being driven rashly
and negligently by the first Respondent on the wrong side of the road.
The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of his death and was in the
business of selling desi ghee and namkinbhujia. The appellants claimed
that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500. The MACT,
however, held that the deceased was working in a small village; his shop
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
bore no name; he was not paying tax,hence his income was assessed at
Rs. 1,200 per month. Accordingly, the appellants were awarded an amount
of Rs. 1,15,200 after applying a multiplier of 12, along with interest at 15
per cent per annum.
4.  In appeal, the High Court applied a multiplier of 15 and increased
the compensation to Rs. 1,85,000. However, interest was reduced to 8
per cent per annum.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
assailed the judgment of the High Court on the following grounds:
i.  The High Court ought to have applied a multiplier of 16 since
the deceased was 38 years of age;
ii.  Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.