UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. versus SMT. VIMLA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 16-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 512 
A 
UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. 
~-
V. 
SMT. VIMLA DEVI AND ORS. 
Civil Appeal No.1068 of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 16, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
J-
'k 
c 
s. 173 -
Fatal accident - Deceased was a 43 year old 
hawker - Claimant not satisfied with compensation awarded 
by Tribunal -
Filed appeal seeking enhancement of 
compensation - High Court took the notional income of 
deceased at Rs.36,0001- p.a and adopting a multiplier of 15 
D awarded Rs. 3. 6 lacs as compensation with interest@ 9% p.a. 
from the date of the claim - Held: Considering the age of the 
< 
deceased, the multiplier adopted by High Court was on the 
>--
higher side - On facts, multiplier of 10 is appropriate - Also, 
no basis was indicated by the High Court for its presumptuous 
E 
conclusion that the deceased earned Rs. 36, 0001- p. a - Taking 
an overall view of the matter including the type of business of 
' 
the deceased, compensation fixed at Rs.2 laks payable with 
interest @ 6% from the date of claim. 
~ 
Pursuant to death of a 43 year old hawker in an 
~ 
F 
accident, a claim petition was filed under the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. The Claims Tribunal awarded 
compensation of Rs.1.65 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% 
p.a. from the date of the claim. The claimants filed appeal 
seeking higher compensation. The High Court took the 
G notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,0001- p.a and 
adopting a multiplier of 15 enhanced the compensation 
_l 
to Rs.3.6 lacs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the 
~ 
claim. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
512 
}' 
UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. V. 
513 
SMT. VIMLA DEVI AND ORS. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 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 B 
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 also c 
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. The highest multiplier has 
to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an 
ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and o 
the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group 
of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. In the 
present case, considering the age of the deceased, the 
multiplier adopted by the High Court appears to be on 
higher side. Keeping in view the parameters indicated, it E 
would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 10 and the 
rate of interest @6% p.a. No basis has been indicated by 
the High Court for its presumptuous conclusion that the 
deceased could have earned Rs.36,000/- p.a. Taking the 
overall view of the matter including type of business of 
the deceased, the compensation is fixed at Rs.2,00,000/-
F 
payable with interest @ 6% from the date of claim. [Paras 
8, 13, 14, 15, 16] [ 515-H; 519-A, 8, C, D, E] 
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport 
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. G 
1994 (2) SCC 176 and 
U.P. 
State 
Road 
Transport 
Corporation And Others v. Trilok Chandra and Ors. 1996 (4) 
sec 362 - referred to. 
Davies v. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd. 1942 
AC 601; Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1951 (2) All ER 448 and Mallett v. Mc Mangle 1969 (2) All ER 
_. -
.178 - referred to. 
Ha_!sbury's Laws of England, Vol.34, Para 98 - referred 
to. 
B 
Case Law Reference 
1942 AC 601 
referred to 
Para 7 
1951 (2) All ER 448 
referred to 
Para 7 
'r 
·-
1969 (2) All ER 178 
referred to 
Para 9 
c 
1994 (2) sec 116 
referred to 
Para 12 
1996 (4) sec 362 
referred to 
Para 12 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1068 
D 
of 2009 
.,., 
From the final Judgement and Order dated 12.12.2006 of 
... 
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in A.O. No. 214of2004. 
Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, for the Appellant. 
E 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
'I 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.