UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus KRISHNA BALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 13-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, ALTAMAS KABIR · 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 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
KRISHNA BALA AND ORS. 
JULY 13, 2006 
B 
[APJJITPASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR,JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166-Multiplier-Determination 
of-Deceased aged 36 years-Multiplier of 22 adopted by tribunal-
C Correctness of-Held. incorrect-Appropriate multiplier would be 13-lnterest 
rate also reduced from 12% to 9%. 
The question which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal 
is whether the Tribunal was right in adopting multiplier of 22 in awarding 
compensation to the widow and children of the deceased aged 36 years who 
D died in motor accident and in granting interest @ 12% from the date of 
application. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss 
E of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the 
case and capitalizing of multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice 
of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the 
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 
F 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. [509-B-DI 
2. The second schedule serve as a guide and is not a ready reckoner. 
The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years 
G when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest 
would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the 
normal retirement age. [511-F-Gl 
H 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, [19661 3 SCC 649, 
referred to. 
506 
.,:-~ -~ 
• 
U.P. STA TE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. KRISHNA BALA [PASAYA T,J.] 
507 
Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd, All ER 665; Nance A 
v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd, [1951 [ 2 All ER448 and Mallett 
v. Mc Mangle, [1969[ 2 All ER 178, referred to. 
Hals bury 's Laws of England (Vol. 34), referred to. 
3. The multiplier as adopted by the Tribunal and maintained by the High B 
Court is clearly indefensible. Considering the age of the deceased the 
multiplier would be 13. Calculated on that basis by taking monthly loss of 
dependency at Rs.2000/- (after adjusting for personal expenses and likelihood 
of increase in salary) the compensation to be awarded would be Rs.3,12,000/ 
-. To the aforesaid sum would be added Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal C 
for deprivation of love and affection and funeral expenses and, therefore, 
entitlement of the claimants is Rs.3,37,000/-. The accident took place on 
29.11.1990. Therefore, the rate of interest would be 9% from the date of filing 
of the claim petition. (SI 1-G-H; 512-A-BI 
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr .. (20051 IO SCC 720; D 
G.M. Kerela SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P.SRTC v. 
Trilok Chandra, (1996[ 4 SCC 362, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4267 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2001 of High Court of Judacutre E 
at Allahabad, in First Appeal from Order No. 1037/1992. 
Sangeeta Kumar and Vijay Kumar for the Appellant. 
Nagendra Singh and Vishwa Pal Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment of a 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the First Appeal 
filed by the appellant against the Award passed by a Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal (XII Additional District Judge, Meerut) (in short the 'Tribunal'.) 
By the Award made. the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5, I 2,000/ 
F 
G 
- to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claimants'). One Rajveer 
Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') died in a motor accident on 
29.11.1990. The claimants filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988 (in short the 'Act'). Age of the deceased was around 36 years and he H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A is earning monthly salary of Rs.2300/- per month. Though claim of agricultural 
income was made, the Tribunal did not accept the same. It adopted multiplier 
of 22 on the ground that the deceased had 22 years of service left. It was 
further noted that thereafter the deceased would have got pension. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.