Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the death compensation as sufficient and remitted the injury compensation matters to the High Court for fresh consideration due to lack of evidentiary analysis and reasons.

Summary

A motor accident caused the death of Khairati Lal and injuries to his wife Sheela Rani and mother Budhwanti. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,11,000 for death, Rs.35,000 for the wife's injuries and Rs.85,000 for the mother's permanent disability. The High Court enhanced the death compensation to Rs.5,55,000 and the injury awards to Rs.50,000 and Rs.1,70,000 respectively, but gave no detailed reasons. The appellants challenged the quantum of compensation, arguing that the multiplier from the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be applied to a claim under s.166 and that the Tribunal and High Court had not considered the evidence for injury awards. The Supreme Court held that the death compensation was sufficient and should not be interfered with, but the injury awards were unsound as they were arrived at without proper evidentiary analysis or cogent reasons. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal concerning death compensation and allowed the appeals concerning injury compensation, remitting those matters to the High Court for fresh consideration. The judgment emphasized the need for reasoned awards based on material evidence in motor accident compensation cases.

Issues considered

Whether the multiplier prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be applied to compute compensation under Section 166.
Whether the compensation awarded for death of the deceased is sufficient and merits interference.
Whether the Tribunal and High Court properly considered the evidence and provided adequate reasons for the injury compensation awards.
Whether the matters relating to injury compensation should be remitted for fresh determination.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor accidentCompensationSection 166MultiplierDeath compensationPersonal injuryEvidence assessmentAppellate jurisdiction

Judgment

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 768

A BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI ~

v.
NIDHAN SINGH @ KAPOOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2009 ets.)
JUL..Y 31, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Motor accident -
1
Resulting in one death, injuries to one and permanent
c disability of one - Claim petitions - Grant of compensation
by Tribunal - Compensation amount enhanced by High Court
- On appeal, ·held: Order of compensation as regards the
deceased sufficient and hence does not call for interference
- Compensation to the claimants on account of injuries and
D permanent disability determined without discussing materials
on record, without analysing evidence and without assigning
sufficient and cogent reasons - Hence, mater remitted to High
Court.

In a motor accident, one person died and his wife
E and mother sustained injuries. Three petitions claiming
compensation were filed. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
granted compensation for a sum of Rs.4, 11,000/- to the
appellant-wife on account of death of her husband, by
-
assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- p.m.
F and deducting 1/3rd therefrom. Wife of the deceased was
further awarded sum of Rs.35,000/- for her own injuries.
Mother of the deceased was awarded Rs. 85,0001- for her
permanent disability. Appellants filed three separate
appeals. High Court enhanced the compensation in
G respect of the death of the deceased as also for the
injuries suffered by the appellants viz. his wife and
mother. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2009 and partly
H 768
BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI v. NIDHAN SINGH @ 769 ·
KAPOOR & ORS.

allowil)Q Civil Appeal No.4958 of 2009 and remitting the A
matters to ·High Court, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court while maintaining the
quantum of income of the deceased at Rs.4500 per
month, applied the multiplier of 15. The High Court 8
proceeded to apply the multiplicand and the multiplier
with ref~rence to the Second Schedule appended to the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal and the High
Court, however, failed to take into consideration that the
multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to C
the Act may not have any co-relationship with
computation of the quantum of compensation on an
application filed u/s. 166 thereof. (Para 13] [773-E-G]

1.2. The deceased apart from his mother and wife had
three children, who were minors at the material time. 0
There i~ no reason to interfere with the judgment of the
High Court as regards compensation paid owing to the
death of the deceased as the amount of compensation
paid was sufficient having regard to the findings of fact
arrived at by the Tribunal as also the High Court. (Para E
13] [773-G-H; 774-A-B]

2.1. So far as that part of the appeal preferred by the
wife of the deceased as regards compensation paid to
her for her injuries and the appeal preferred by the mother F
· of the deceased are concerned, neither the Tribunal nor
the High Court considered the evidences of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. (Para 14]
[774-B•C]

2.2. Why the amount claimed by the claimants G
towards expenses for obtaining medical treatment had
been rejected has not been stated. On what basis the
compensation on other heads, viz., pain· and suffering
expenses, special diet expenses, expenses on
transportation, expenses on attendant, compensation for H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A disfigurement and social discomfort, etc. have been
granted is not known. Figures have been arrived at
without discussing the materials on records, without
analyzing the evidences and without assigning sufficient
and cogent reasons therefore. Interest of justice shall be
B met if the claim petitions filed by the wife and mother of
the deceased with regard to the amount of compensation
for their personal injuries are remitted to the High Court
for consideration of the matters afresh. [Para 15 and 16]
[774-D-G]
c CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4956 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2051 of
D 2003.

Sarvesh Bisaria, S. Usha Reddy for the Appellant.

AK. De, V.P. Tripathi, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Ashok K.
Mahajan, Anil Nag for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Khairati Lal (deceased) and the appellants herein were
F residents of a village known as Khamano Mandi. On or about
11.03.1998, at 8 a.m .. they were proceeding to another village
on a scooter. Kanwar Ram and Ramesh Kumar were following
them on another scooter. One Trala (a goods carrier) struck the
scooter of Khairati Lal near a village known as Pahar Kalan.
G The said vehicle was being driven by Shri Nidhan Singh. As a
result of the said accident, the appellants herein as also Khairati
Lal fell down on the road. Whereas Khairati Lal and the
appellant Sheela Rani, wife of the deceased suffered head
injuries, left leg of the appellant Budhwanti was crushed under
H the wheels of the vehicle. They were taken to the AP.Jain
BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI v. NIDHAN SINGH @ 771
KAPOOR & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Hospital, Patiala for treatment. Khairati Lal succumbed to his A
injuries in the hospital.

3. Contending that the said _accident had taken place
owing to rash and negligent driving of Nidhan Singh, three claim
applications were filed before the Motor Accident Claim
B
Tribunal, Patiala.

One of the contentions raised by the respondent No. 3 -
Insurance Company was that neither Khairati Lal nor
respondent No. 1 Nidhan Singh was holding any valid driving
licence. c
4, The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival pleadings
of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether Sheela Rani received injuries due to rash and
0
negligent driving of Trala No. HR 38 6785 being driven by
Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so its effect?

2. Whether Budhwanti also received injuries due to rash
and negligent driving of Trala No. HR 38 6785 being driven
by Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so its effect? E

3. Whether Khairati Lal died due to rash and negligent
driving of Trala No. HR 38 6785 being driven by Nidhan
Singh respondent No. 1? If so its effect?

3A. Whether the claimants are entitled to any F
compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

4. Whether Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1 WgS not having
valid driving licence at the time of accident?
G
5. Whether this claim petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?"

5. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the materials
brought on record held issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the
claimants opining that Sheela Rani and Budhwanti Devi , H

f
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A appellants herein had sustained injuries owing to rash and
negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 Nidhan Singh and
Khairati Lal died for the self-same reasons. Issue No. 4 was
also decided in favour of the claimants - appellants. Issue No.
5, however, was not pressed.
B
6. Whereas the appellant Sheela Rani was granted
compensation for a sum of Rs. 4, 11,000/- on account of death
of Khairati Lal, she was awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/·- in
resp~ct of her own injuries. While determining the amount of
C compensation of Rs. 4, 11,000/- , the learned Tribunal assessed
the income of the d~ckased at Rs. 4500/- per month and one
-third therefrom was deducted to arrive at the aforesaid
amount. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/-
in favour of the appellant Budhwanti on account of permanent
disability suffered by her including disfigurement in the said
D accident.

7. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with 'the said award,
appellants preferred three separate appeals before the High
Court inter alia contending that the income of Khairati Lal
E should have been calculated at Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per
month and not at Rs. 4,500/- by the Tribunal.

8. So far as the injuries suffered by the appellant Sheela
Rani are concerned, it was contended that she had spent an
amount of Rs. 1.50 lakh on her medical treatment and as
F amount should have been awarded in her favour. Apart
therefrom enhancement of the amount of compensation on other
heads was also claimed.

9. Budhwanti, whose leg was amputated, also raised a
G contention that she had spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards
medical expenses. Besides the same, she had also spent
towards hire of services of an attendant and would furthermore
be required to incur expenditure of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per
month therefor.
H
BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI v. NIDHAN SINGH @ 773
KAPOOR & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

• 10. Ttie High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, A
enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of death of
Khairati Lal to Rs. 5,55,000/- and for injuries suffered by the
• appellants Sheela Rani and Budhwanti to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.
1,70,000/- respectively.
B
11. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed by
the appellants herein.

12. It is unfortunate, we must note at the outset, that the
' "' High Court did not assign sufficient or cogent reasons in
c
-=t support of its judgment.

13. Appellants contend that Khairati Lal was aged about
• 35 years at the time of his death. He was running a general
~ merchant shop. He is said to have been selling shoes also.
Although in support of the said plea, income tax receipts were D
filed, the learned Tribunal did not place any reliance thereupon.
.. It was opined that the income of Khairati Lal was Rs. 4500/-
per month. The «,....,learned Tribunal, furthermore, held that the age
1 of the deceased in view of the post mortem report (Exhibit
PW.3/A) was 43 years. In the aforem~lltioned premise,

--
_,
~
multiplier of 11 was applied. ·

The High Court, however, while maintaining the quantum
E

of income of Khairati Lal at Rs. 4500/~ per month, applied the
multiplier of 15. The High Court,~roceeded to apply the
-i. multiplicand and the multiplier wifliteference to the Second F
Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
"the Act"). The Tribunal and the High Court, however, failed to
take into consideration that the multiplier specified in the
Second Schedule appended to the Act may not have any co-
relationship with computation of the quantum of compensation G
"'' on an application filed uncjer Section 166 thereof.
~-,..----

~
It, however, appearsthat the deceased Khairati Lal apart
from his mother Budhwanti and wife Sheela Rani had three
children, who were minors at the material time.
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A Respondents have not preferred any appeal questioning
the correctness of the amount awarded by the High Court. We,
therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment
of the High Court as regards compensation paid owing to the
death of the deceased Khairati Lal as we are of the opinion
B that the amount of compensation paid was sufficient having
regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal
as also th~ High Court.

14. So far as that part of the appeal preferred by the ~
\.
appellant Sheela Rani as regards compensation paid to her
c for her injuries and the appeal preferred by the appellant
Budhwanti are conc~rned, neither the Tribunal nor the High
Court considered the evidences of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the claimants.

D 15. Why the amount claimed by the claimants towards
expenses for obtaining medical treatment had been rejected
J
has not been stated. On what basis the compensation on other
heads, viz., pain and suffering expenses, special diet
expenses, expens13s on transportation, expenses on attendant,
E compensation for disfigurement and social discomfort, etc. have
been granted is not known. Figures have been arrived at
without discussing the materials on records, without analyzing
the evidences and without assigning sufficient and cogent
-
reasons therefor.
F ~
16. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice
shall be met if the claim petitions filed by Sheela Rani and
Budhwanti with regard to the amount of compensation for their
personal injuries are remitted to the High Court for
consideration of the matters afresh. We, however, make it clear
G that as the respondents herein did not prefer any appeal, the
amount of c:ompensation already granted by the High Court
shall not be interfered with and the only question which would t

be considered by the High Court is as to whether the claimants
for sustaining injuries on their persons, are entitled to a higher
H amount of compensation on the basis of the materials brought
BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI v. NIDHAN SINGH @ 775
KAPOOR & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

on record by the parties. A

17. That part of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.
4315 of 2007 preferred by Sheela Rani as regards
compensation awarded owing to the death of her husband is
dismissed; the other part relating to compensation paid to her
8
for her injuries is allowed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No. 4130 of 2007 preferred by Budhwanti is allowed with
the aforementioned observations and directions. We would,
• however, request the High Court to consider the desirability of
disposing the matter at an early date and preferably within three C
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.

-