Civil Appeal No. 9858 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1056 of 2008). Case: Radhakrishna and Anr. Vs Gokul and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 9858 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1056 of 2008) |
| Judges | G.S. Singhvi and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173; Constitution of India - Article 32 |
| Judgement Date | October 31, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Singhvi, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre enhancement of Rs. 8,000 granted by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount of compensation determined by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha (West), Ni-mar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the Appellants have filed this appeal.
-
Nilesh (son of the Appellants) was killed in a road accident, which occurred on 20.1.2003, when the motorcycle on which he was going along with his friend Rohit was hit by the truck belonging to Respondent No. 1.
-
The Appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,60,000. Their claim was founded on the following assertions:
(i) The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by Respondent No. 1, which was insured with Respondent No. 3 -United India Insurance Company
(ii) At the time of accident, the deceased was 19 years old and he was a student of degree course in Engineering.
(iii) After completion of study, the deceased was expected to get a good job as an Engineer and earn substantial salary.
-
In the written statement filed by them, the owner and the driver (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) claimed that the truck was duly insured with Respondent No. 3 and the compensation, if any, was payable by Respondent No. 3. In a separate statement, Respondent No. 3 denied its liability by asserting that the driver of the truck and the motorcyclist did not have valid driving licences. It was further pleaded that the Appellants are not entitled to compensation because the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.
-
On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
-
Whether the Resp-2 by driving the truck No. MP-11A/2453 in rash & negligent manner caused the accident with the motor cycle No. MP 10 D 42/4 driven by Resp-4 coming from opposite direction?
-
Whether the pillion rider on the motor cycle, i.e., the son of applicants Nilesh died due to physical injuries received in the said accident?
-
Whether the truck No. MP/11A/2454 was being driven in violation of Insurance policy & provision of the M.V. Act at the time of accident, If yes its effect?
-
Whether the motor cycle No. MP 10 D 4214 was being driven in violation of Insurance policy & provision of M.V. Act? If Yes, its effect?
-
Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation. If yes, what amount and from whom?
-
Relief and Cost.
-
After analyzing the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal answered issues No. 1 to 4 in favour of the Appellants. While dealing with the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the statement of Appellant No. 1 Radhakrishna Soni and the documents produced by him and observed:
The age of Nilesh is stated to be 19 years by the applicant at the time of accident which is supported by school record. As the deceased was studying at the time of death, his probable income can be determined at Rs. 15,000/- p.a. from which 1/3 is deducted for the annual dependency of the applicants. It is proper to apply 17 multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased. Accordingly the total dependency amount is Rs. 10,000x17=Rs. 1,70,000. Due to the untimely death of son the applicant are deprived from love & affection of son. So each applicant is entitled to Rs. 10,000 is the annual dependency of the applicants. It is proper to apply 17 multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased Rs. 1,70,000. Apart from this Rs. 2000/- is awarded for funeral expenses. Thus the grand total compensation of the applicants is Rs. 1,92,000/- entitled to get from Res 1-3 jointly or separately.
-
The Appellants challenged the award of the Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Act but could not persuade the High Court to grant substantial enhancement in the amount of compensation and the appeal was disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay additional compensation of Rs. 8,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
-
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. For deciding the question whether the Appellants are entitled to higher compensation, it will be useful to notice some of the precedents. In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C. (2009) 6 SCC 121, a two-Judge Bench of this Court took cognizance of the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation to the victims of accidents caused by motor vehicles, referred to the judgments in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and made the following observations:
Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, this Court stated:
-
The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for the assessment of compensation.
Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants.
The issues to be determined by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial