THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC versus SRIPRIYAND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC 
v. 
SRIPRIY A AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Motor accident-Death of victim-Compensation-Computation of-
C Multiplier-Interest-Held, in a fatal accident action, accepted measure of 
damages is pecuniary loss suffered by dependents as a result of death-Age 
- of deceased being 3 7 years, appropriate multiplier would be 12 and rate of 
interest 7. 5-/ncome fixed by Tribunal and deduction for personal expenses 
as 113, not interfered with-Other expenses awarded would remain unaltered. 
D 
Respondent's husband, who was a driver in the appellant-Cor:poration, 
was traveling in its bus, which met with an accident and as a result he died. 
The respondent along with her minor daughter and in-laws filed a claim 
petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compen:mtion of 
~ 
Rs.15,00,000/· indicating the age of the deceased about 37 years and monthly 
salary of Rs.6000/-. The Tribunal adopting a multiplier of 16 and after 
E deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.7,72,000/- with 
9% interest from date of the petition till payment. The Corporation having 
remained unsuccessful before the High Court, filed the appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the multiplier of 16 as adopted 
by the Tribunal was high and so also was the rate of interest. It wa:> further 
F submitted that claim of Rs.10,000/- for loss of happiness of marriedl life and 
loss of love and affection as also Rs.2000/- each for funeral and transportation 
expenses should also not have been allowed. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
G 
HELD: l. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure of damages 
H 
awarded to the dependents is the pecuniary loss suffered by them m: a result 
of the death. (Para 6) (765-A-B) 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, (1966) 3 SCR 649, 
relied on. 
762 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC v. SRIPRIY A 
763 
Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. ALL ER 665, A 
referred to. 
2.1. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of 
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the 
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 B 
claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, 
if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield 
the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should 
also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-
up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. [Para 81 
G.M Kera/a S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, AIR (1994) SC 1631; U.P. c 
State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chand, [1996) 4 SCALE 22; New India 
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr., [2005110 SCC 720; U.P. State Road 
Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors., [2006) 6 SCC 249; 
Managing Director TNSTC Ltd v. KI. Bindu, [200518 SCC 473; T.N. State 
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, [20051 6 SCC 236; Municipal D 
Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, [2003) 8 SCC 731; State of 
Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, [2003) 7 SCC 484; The New India Assurance 
Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., (2007) 2 SCALE 227 and New India 
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satendar & Ors., JT (2006) 10 SC 234, relied on. 
Mallett v. MC Mangle, [19691 2 All ER 178 and Nance v. British E 
Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., [195112 All ER 448, referred to. 
2.2. In the instant case, considering the age of the deceased, appropriate 
multiplier would be 12. The income fixed by the Tribunal and the deduction 
for personal expenses do not warrant any interference. Worked out on that 
basis, the entitlement of the loss of income is Rs.5, 76,000/-. The other F 
expenses awarded remain unaltered. In other words, total entitlement of the 
claimants is fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to fix the rate of 
interest at 7.5% instead of9% as done by the Tribunal and maintained by 
the High Court. The amount shall be disbursed and appropriated as directed 
in the judgment. [Para 14 and 151 [768-C-GI 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1200 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No. 2404 of 2004. 
T. Harish Kumar and R. Ayyam Perumal for the Appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.