SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 43 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1098 
SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. 
v. 
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3483 OF 2008) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.) 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
Motor vehicle accident - Compensation awarded by 
Tribunal - Enhanced by High Court - On appeal, Held: 
Income of the deceased towards future prospects could be 
taken into account - Standardization thereof - Deduction 
o towards personal and living expenses - Guidelines given -
Selection of multiplier - Criteria laid down - Computation of 
compensation taking into account future pay revisions - ff 
claimants delay the proceedings they can rely upon revised 
higher pay scales that may come into effect during such 
E pendency - However, promptness cannot be punished in this 
manner - Hence revision in pay scale subsequent to death 
and before final hearing cannot be taken into account for 
determining the income for calculating compensation -
Personal and living expenses determined - Enhancement of 
F compensation and interest thereon allowed - Enhanced 
compensation awarded to be taken by the widow exclusively. 
The appeal has been filed against the High Court 
judgment. It sought higher compensation. On the basis 
of the contentions raised by the appellants and 
G respondents, the following questions arose for 
consideration: 
(i) Whether the future prospects can be taken into 
H 
1098 
\. 
SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT 
1099 
) 
CORPORATION & ANR. 
account for determining the income of the deceased ? If A 
so, whether pay revisions that occurred during the 
pendency of the claim proceedings or appeals therefrom 
should be taken into account ? 
(ii) Whether the deduction towards personal and 
B 
living expenses of the deceased should be less than one-
fourth (1/4th) as contended by the appellants, or should 
be one-third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents ? 
(iii) Whether the High Court erred in taking the c 
multiplier as 13 ? 
(iv) What should be the compensation ? 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
Di 
HELD:1. Lack of uniformity and consistency in 
awarding compensation has been a matter of grave 
concern. Every district has one or more Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal/s. If different Tribunals calculate 
compensation differently on the same facts, the claimant, 
E 
the litigant, the common man will be confused, perplexed 
and bewildered. If there is significant divergence among 
Tribunals in determining the quantum of compensation 
on similar facts, it will lead to dissatisfaction and distrust 
in the system. [Para 8) [1113-F-G] 
F 
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport 
Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176 and UP 
State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra 1996 (4) 
sec 362, relied on. 
G 
Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. [1951 AC 
601 and Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 
1942 AC 601, referred to. 
H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Just compensation is adequate compensation 
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and 
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss 
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can 
do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to 
B award of compensation. It is not intended to be a 
bonanza, largesse or source of profit. Assessment of 
compensation though involving certain hypothetical 
considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice 
and justness emanate from equality in treatment, 
c consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and 
fairness and uniformity in the decision making process 
and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have 
mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing 
compensation, same or similar facts should lead to 
0 awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are 
the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, 
consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and 
freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive 
at just compensation. [Para 8] [1114-G-H; 1115-A] 
E 
3. Basically only three facts need to be established 
by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case 
of death : (a) age of the deceased; {b) income of the 
deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The 
issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the 
F loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be 
made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be 
made towards the

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