Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5399-5400 OF 2012
Rebeka Minz & Ors. ….Appellants
VERSUS
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. These appeals at the instance of the claimants before the Motor
Accidents claims Tribunals challenge the common order of the High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack dated 05.03.2009 passed in MACA No.821 of 2007 and MACA
No.953 of 2007. MACA No. 821 of 2007 was preferred by the appellants while
MACA No.953 of 2007 was preferred by the first respondent-Insurance company
in the High Court. The husband of the first appellant died in an accident
on 04.01.1995 when he was returning from the plant site on a scooter
bearing registration No. OR-06-7703 around 6.30 a.m. near NALCO Nagar on NH-
42 at a place called Smelter Chhak, due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the truck bearing registration No. ORA-4241.
2. The appellants being the wife and children of the deceased preferred
the claim before the Motor Accidents Tribunal in MAC case No.21 of 1995.
The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence placed before it, awarded
a sum of Rs. 10,08,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of
7% per annum with effect from 03.02.1995 to 22.08.1995 and again from
16.01.2007 till the payment within one month. While the appellants were
aggrieved insofar as the Tribunal applied the multiplier 12 instead of 17,
having regard to the fact that the deceased at the time of his death was 35
years old as well as non-grant of interest for certain period, the first
respondent was aggrieved of the very award of compensation itself. The
High Court while disposing of the appeal reduced the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal and also the rate of interest by holding as under:-
“Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and keeping in view findings of the learned Tribunal with
regard to the quantum of compensation amount awarded and the basis on
which the same has been arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice
would be best served if the awarded compensation amount of
Rs.10,08,000/- is modified and reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- which is
payable to the claimants. The claimants are also entitled to interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of the claim application, till deposit of
the amount. The impugned award is modified to the said extent.
The appellant insurance company (in MACA No.953 of 2007) is
directed to deposit the modified compensation amount of Rs, 5,00,000/-
along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filling of claim
application with the learned Tribunal within six weeks from today. On
deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants
proportionately as per the direction of the learned tribunal given in
the impugned award.”
3. At the very outset, it is needless to state that the High Court while
reducing the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest failed
to assign any reason. The impugned order of the High Court being a non-
speaking order calls for interference in these appeals.
4. As stated by us, the appellants, namely, the claimants alone have
come forward with these appeals. Therefore, the only question to be
examined is as to what is the multiplier to be applied, which ground was
though raised before the High Court, we find that the High Court has not
ventured to answer the said question. This question has time and again
been considered by this Court. In a recent decision of this Court, namely,
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – 2012 (6) SCC 421-
to which one of us (Hon. G.S. Singhvi. J.) was a party, after referring to
the decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. –
2009 (6) SCC 121 wherein the formula under different headings including the
one relating to selection of multiplier was quoted with approval. The said
formula has been set out in Sarla Verma (supra) in para 42 which reads as
under:-
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for
26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14
for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two
units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for
56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
5. The said part of the formula was applied in the said reported
decision Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.(supra)
referred to above while working out the compensation payable to the
claimants therein. We, therefore, follow the above referred to decisions
and when the said formula is applied since the deceased was stated to be 35
years old at the time of his death, the multiplier would be 16 which has to
be applied for calculating the compensation. The Tribunal after examining
the materials before it, found that after deducting 1/3rd of personal
expenses, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- and the net
contribution to the family was ascertained at Rs. 84,000/- per annum.
Applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation works out to Rs. 13,44,000/-
. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the High Court insofar as it
reduced the quantum of compensation, we modify the compensation payable to
the appellants in a sum of Rs. 13,44,000/- [84,000/- x 16]. The said sum
of Rs. 13,44,000/-should carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of application till the date of realization.
6. The first respondent is, therefore, directed to pay to the appellants
the total amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,44,000/- after giving
credit to whatever payment already made by calculating the rate of interest
from the date of application till realization. Such payment should be made
in the proportion as set out by the Tribunal in the last para of its order
dated 10.07.2007. With the above modification in the quantum of
compensation and the rate of interest payable right from the date of
application, the compensation shall be made within a period of three months
from the date of this order. The appeals stand allowed as above.
…..……….…………………………...J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
……………………………………………J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
August 23, 2012
-----------------------
3
