THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC LTD. versus K.I. BINDU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 05-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC LTD. 
A 
v. 
K.1. BINDU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 5, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, I 988-Sections I 63A and I 66 rlw Second Schedule: 
Fatal accident-Computation of compensation-Multiplier method--
Fixation of appropriate multiplier-Deceased aged 34 years-Tribunal while C 
awarding compensation applied a multiplier of 17-Propriety of-Held, not 
proper-Highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 to 25 years, 
when an ordinary person starts earning-Lowest would be in respect of person 
in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age-On facts, 
multiplier of I 3 would be appropriate. 
D 
Fat al accident-Computation of compensation-Contributory negligence 
on part of the deceased-Plea of-Not sustainable in facts-circumstances of 
the case-No definite material to infer that deceased by his negligent acts 
contributed to the accident. 
The bus belonging to appellant-corporation dashed again'st deceased, 
who was riding a motorcycle. Deceased was aged 34 years and his gross 
monthly income was Rs. 5,843 per month. The widow, children and mother 
E 
of the deceased, i.e. the respondents filed claim petition before the 
Tribunal. Tribunal after making 1/3rd deduction towards personal 
expenses, arrived at an annual dependency amount of Rs. 46, 752 and after F 
applying a multiplier of 17 awarded a sum of Rs. 7,94, 784. An additional 
sum of Rs. 40,000 was awarded for pain and sufferings, loss of love and 
affection, transportation, post mortem and funeral expenditure. Appellant-
corporation challenged the award before High Court which declined to 
interfere. 
In appeal to this Court, the compensation awarded was challenged 
on grounds of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the 
multiplier adopted being on the higher side . 
1089 
G 
H 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. No definite material as regards contributory negligence 
was placed on record. There was no definite material to infer that deceased 
by his negligent acts contributed to the accident. I 1093-A-B-C) 
B 
2.1. The measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is 
likely to be suffered by each dependent. The assessment of damages to 
compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the 
nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the 
life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the 
C deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount 
that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the 
chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not 
live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the 
chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income 
or might have lost his employment or income together. 
D 
11094-C; 1094-F-G-HJ 
2.2. The manner of arriving a.t the damages is to ascertain the .net 
income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his 
dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the 
deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-
E maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income 
the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. 
Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing 
the proper number of year's purchase. 11094-H; 1095-A-BJ 
2.3. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of 
F hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad 
master" since there are no often many imponderables. In every case "it is 
the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best 
as it can the loss suffered. 11095-B-C] 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, 11966) 3 SCR 649 and 
G Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Ve/uswami, 11962] 1SCR929, referred· 
to. 
H 
Davies v. Powell Duffeegn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601 and 
Baker v. Bolton, (1979) I All ER 774, referred to. 
3.1. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC LTD. v. K.I. BINDU 
I 091 
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the A 
case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The 
choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that 
of the claimants whic

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