LexTHE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND ANR. versus M. RAMADEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 22
- -{
A
B
THE APSRTC,. REP. BY ITS Gl!NERAL MANAGER
AND ANR.
v.
M. RAMADEVI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 682 of 2008)
JANUARY 25, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
s. 166:
C
Motor accident -
Causing death of employee of
appellant-Corporation - MACT awarded compensation -
Appeal by Corporation before High Court - Claimants did not
prefer any appeal - High Court, holding that the award passed
by MACT was inadequate, enhanced compensation -
-i..
o Contention of Appellant-corporation that in absence of any
appeal by the claimants, High Court ought not to have
enhanced the compensation amount - Held: Under the Act,
there is no restriction that the MACT!Court cannot award· -,..
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount -
E Function of the MACT!Court is to award 'Just" compensation
based on the evidence on record.
Motor accident - Causing death of 40 year old employee
of appellant-Corporation - Computation of compensation -
Multiplier - Held: Compensation to be awarded by adopting
F multiplier of 10 and not 12 as adopted by both MACT and
High Court.
~
Respondents filed claim petition under s.166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for death
of an employee of appellant-Corporation in a motor
G accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation by
taking the age of deceased as 40 years and his salary as
-.../.
Rs.2,367/- per month and thereafter applying the multiplier
of 12. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- for non-pecuniary damages and consortium.
H
22
,
_,,,_ .
THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
23
):
~ND ANR. v. M. RAMADEVI AND ORS.
The total compensation amount was directed to be paid A
with interest @ 12% p.a. Appellant-Corporation filed
appeal before High Court, but the claimants-Respondents
did not prefer any appeal. The High Court held that the
award passed by the Tribunal was inadequate and
enhanced the compensation amount by taking the B
monthly pay of deceased as Rs.3,536/- and thereafter
'"'
adopting the multiplier of 12. The Court affirmed the
•,
additional award of Rs.20,000/- by Tribunal for non-
pecuniary damages and consortium but reduced the
interest payable on the total compensation amount from c
12% p.a. to 9% p.a.
The contention of Appellant-corporation is that in
absence of any appeal by the claimants-Respondents, the
High Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation
amount and that the High Court erred in adopting a higher D
___.
multiplier.
~
...,
Party allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is
-4
no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award E
compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount.
The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award "just"
compensation which is reasonable on the basis of
evidence produced on record. As provided under sub-
,.
section (4) to Section 166 of the Act, even the report F
I
submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of
-i
Section 158 can be treated as an application for
-<
compensation under the said Act. [Para 9] [26-C-E]
Nagappa v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 27 4 -
~
relied on.
·G
r
~
2.1. Considering the figure in Ex.A/7, the monthly
income is taken at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd
therefrom the annual contribution is fixed at Rs.24,000/-.
..
[Para 11] [26-G]
H
-f
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 2 S.C.R.
*
A
2.2. Adopting the multiplier of 10, the amount payable
to the claimants comes to Rs.2,40,000/- to that shall be
added the amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for
non-pecuniary damages and consortium as there was no
challenge by the Corporation to the award of such
8 amounts. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant comes
to Rs.2,60,000/-. The interest rate of 9% fixed by the High
Court does not warrant any interference. [Para 12] [26-H;
'1
27-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 682
c of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2003 of
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Civil Misc. Appeal· No. 784 of 2002.
D
Ms. K. Radha Rani, P. Vijay Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu
for the Appellants.
...
G.V.R. Choudary and K. Shivraj Chaudhuri for the
Respondents.
,..
r-
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
.....
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.