SHAKTI DEVI versus NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 09-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 574 
SHAKTI DEVI 
V. 
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3660 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Compensation -
Claim for - Fatal motor accident - Deceased aged 22 years 
C - Tribunal awarding Rs. 35,0001- with 10% simple interest 
p.m. from date of award till realisation - Compensation 
computed at Rs. 60, 0001- and Rs. 25, 0001- adjusted as paid 
to claimant for no-fault liability - Upheld by High Court - On 
appeal held: Deceased was 22 years old and was not married, 
D and was earning about Rs. 1,0001- p.m. - Evidence on record 
that deceased would have got government job in future - In 
view of the facts, taking annual loss of dependency as Rs. 
12, 0001- and applying multiplier of 11, keeping in view the age 
of claimant, compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,32,0001- with 
E simple interest of 10% p.a. 
One 'P' died in the accident caused by the bus and 
the truck due to the negligent driving by the drivers. He 
was 22 years old and was earning about Rs. 1000/- per 
month. The parents of 'P' filed a claim petition under 
F Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal 
applying the multiplier of 8, computed the compensation 
at Rs. 60,000/- from which Rs. 25,000/- , paid to the 
claimant towards no-fault liability, was adjusted and the 
claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- with simple 
G interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the award till its 
realisation. The award was equally apportioned between 
the insurance companies. The High Court upheld the 
order passed by the tribunal. Aggrieved, the appellant 
H 
574 
SHAKTI DEVI v. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 575 
& ANR. 
filed the instant appeal challenging the quantum of A 
compensation. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, at the time of accident, 
the deceased was 22-year old and not married. He was 
running a general store from his house and earning 
about Rs. 1000/- per month from the business. In *Sar/a 
Verma's case, this Court stated that where the deceased 
was self-employed, the court would usually take only the 
actual income at the time of death; a departure from there 
C 
should be made only in rare and exceptional cases 
involving special circumstances. The instant case 
involves special circumstances. There is evidence that 
the deceased was to get employment in the forest 
department after the retirement of his father. The evidence 
B 
D 
is based on the government policy. The deceased, thus, 
had a reasonable expectation of the government 
employment in near future. In the circumstances, the 
actual income at the time of deceased's death is revised 
and taking into consideration the special circumstances 
of the case, the monthly income of the deceased 
deserves to be fixed at Rs. 2000/-. [Para 12] [584-A-D] 
E 
1.2 As regards the personal expenses, since the . 
deceased was not married, the principle in *Sar/a Verma's 
case that 50% should be treated as the personal and 
living expenses of the bachelor may be applied. Thus, the 
annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 12,000/-. 
The tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. It cannot be said 
that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied 
keeping in view the age of the deceased. In a case where 
G 
the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the 
deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of the 
deceased has to be taken into account for the 
capitalization of the lost dependency. It is so because the 
choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the 
F 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADOL.) S.C.R. 
A deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. The 
exact age of the claimant has not come on record. The 
age of the claimant on the date of the accident would be 
about 54-55 years. As per the table prepared in *Sar/a 
Verma's case, the multiplier of 11 would, therefore, be 
B applicable. By multiplying the annual loss of dependency 
(Rs.12000/-) with the multiplier of 11, the claimant is 
entitled to the compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,32,000/-
. The compensation determined by the tribunal at Rs. 
60,000/- and upheld by the High Court in the appeal is 
c manifestly erroneous, and is enhanced to Rs. 1,32,000/-. 
which would be paid by the insurance companies to the 
appellant with the simple interest of 10% per annum from 
the date of judgment of the tribunal till the actual payment, 
apportioned equall

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