SRI K.R. MADHUSUDHAN & ORS. versus THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 18-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 1061 
SRI K.R. MADHUSUDHAN & ORS. 
v. 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.1923-1924 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident.- · 
Deceased aged 53 years of age and working as a Senior 
Assistant in the State Electricity Board - Claim petition by his C 
three sons and paternal grand-mother - Tribunal applied a 
multiplier of 11 and awarded tot.al compensation of 
Rs. 14, 27, 4961- with interest@ 9% p.a. - High Court, however, 
reduced the compensation by adopting a split multiplier of 6 
- On appeal, held: High Court introduced the concept of split D 
multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the 
Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor - It also did 
· not consider the clear and corroborative evidence about the 
· prospect of future increment of the deceased - Judgment of 
High Court deserves to be set aside for it was perverse and 
E 
clea,dy contrary to the evidence on record - Respondents 
directed to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,0001- with the rate 
of interest as granted by the Tribunal. 
F 
PW1 's father was crossing the road, when a Maruti 
Van (owned by the first respondent) came at a high speed 
and dashed against him, causing severe injuries to him 
which ultimately led to his death. The deceased was 53 
years of age and was survived by his wife and three 
sons, the appellants. They filed a claim petition under 
. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming 
G 
Rs.20,00,0001- as compensation. The Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal (MACT) found that the death of PW1 's -
father was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 
van ~river (the second respondent). 
1061 
H 
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The deceased was working as Senior Assistant in 
Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) and his last drawn 
gross monthly salary was Rs.15,642/- i.e. Rs.1,87,704/-
annually. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 and 
awarded total compensation of Rs.14,27 ,496/- along with 
B interest of 9% p.a. The Hig'1 Court reduced the 
compensation to Rs.11,82,000/- by adopting a split 
multiplier of 6. 
In the instant appeals, the appellants contended that 
C while awarding compensation, the High Court erred in 
not considering the future prospects of the deceased and 
the revision in his salary and that it further erred in 
adopting a split multiplier. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The law regarding addition in income for 
future prospects has been clearly laid down in Sar/a 
Varma case. In the said case, the Court held that there 
should be no addition to income for future prospects 
E where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. 
The Bench called it a rule of thumb and it was developed . 
so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcomes of litigation. 
However, the Bench held that a departure can be made 
In rare and exceptional cases involving special 
circumstances. The rule of thumb evolved in Sar/a Verma 
F Is to be applied to those cases where there is no concrete 
evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future 
prospects. The said rule was based on assumption and 
to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the 
Interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the 
G same. [Paras 8, 9) [1067-C; 1068-A-C] 
H 
1.2. In the present case there is clear and 
incontrovertible evidence on record that the deceased 
was entitled and in fact bound to get a rise in income In 
K.R. MADHUSUDHAN & ORS. v. ADMINISTRATIVE 1063 
OFFICER & ANR. 
the future, a fact which was corroborated by evidence on 
A 
record. Thus, the present case comes within the 
'exceptional circumstances' and not within the purview 
of rule of thumb laid down by the Sar/a Verma judgment. 
Hence, even though the deceased was above 50 years 
of age, he was entitled to increase in income due to future 
B 
prospects. [Para 10) (1068-D-E] 
Sar/a Varma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport 
Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 - referred to. 
2. The evidence of PW.1 is that there are four C 
claimants, three of them are the sons of the deceased and 
the other claimant is paternal grand-mother. Therein, he 
stated that the deceased was the only bread earner of the 
family. It was stated by PW.1 that if his father, the 
deceased, would have been alive he could have got D 
promotion and could have received a salary of Rs.20,000/ 
- per month. PW.3, a Senior Assistant i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.