Supreme Court of India
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPALI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 271
- Decided
- 5 July 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings on personal expense deduction and income increase but corrected the multiplier to 15, thereby enhancing compensation to Rs.10,63,040, ordering interest, and directing the insurer to pay Rs.5 lakh costs, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The case involved a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act after the death of Nanag Ram, a 36‑year‑old machine operator, in a road accident. The claimants sought Rs.24 lakh, while the insurer challenged the award on several grounds. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court should have applied the standard one‑third deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses, whether a 100% increase in the deceased’s income was justified, and whether the multiplier of 10 used by the Tribunal and High Court was appropriate. It held that the High Court was correct in not applying the one‑third deduction and in assuming a 100% income increase, but erred in using a multiplier of 10; the correct multiplier for a 36‑year‑old is 15. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.10,63,040 with interest at 12% per annum, and the insurer was ordered to pay Rs.5 lakh costs to the claimants. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should have applied the one‑third deduction for personal expenses of the deceased under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether a 100% increase in the deceased’s income, based on expected salary growth and bonus, is permissible.
- Whether the multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal and High Court is appropriate for a 36‑year‑old deceased, or whether a multiplier of 15 should be used.
- Whether the ex‑parte interim order granting the insurer relief for five years warrants cost imposition.
- Whether the special appeal is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100A
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 163-A, s. 166
Subjects
Motor accident compensationMultiplierPersonal expense deductionMotor Vehicles ActArticle 142Ex‑parte interim orderCost awardInsurance claim
Judgment
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 834
A NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
GOPALI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal ·No. 5179 of 2012)
JULY 05, 2012
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
c
s. 166 - Motor accident - Death of victim - Claim for
compensation - Computation of income of deceased -
Consideration of increase in income - Held: High Court was
justified in determining the amount of compensation by
o granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased - In
the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22
years and during that period his salary would have certainly
doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary
as bonus per year - Insurer's challenge to the impugned order
E is meritless.
Motor accident - Death of victim - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal expenses - Held: Single Judgf! ·
of the High Court did not commit any error by not following
F the rule of 1!3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of
the deceased - In the instant case, the deceased had 8
dependents including four sons and one daughter - Where
the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more
having an income of Rs.3,0001- to Rs.5,0001-, it is virtually
G impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total
income upon himself.
Motor accident - Compensation - Multiplier - Deceased
aged about 36 years - Held: Tribunal and High Court were
H 834
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 835
ORS.
not right in applying the multiplier of 10 - They should have A
adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining
the amount of compensation - This is a fit case in which the
Court should exercise power under Art. 142 of the Constitution
and .enhance the compensaUon determined by High Court,
by applying appropriate multiplier - With a view to do complete B
justice to the claimants, the· amount of compensation is
redetermined by applying the multiplier of 15 and accordingly,
a
the claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs. 10, 63, 0401
-, as detailed in the judgment - The claimants shall also get
interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per C
annum from the date of filing the claim petition - Interest -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.
COSTS:
D
Payment of compensation delayed - Compensation
awarded by Tribunal enhanced by single Judge of High Court,
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Held: Since the
insurer had· enjoyed the ex-parte interim order pa~sed by
Supreme Court for a period of five years, it is directed to pay E
cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
··Appeal by insurer challenging the compensation
awarded by Tribunal, enhanced by single Judge of High Court F
and confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Ex-parte
interim order - Court expressed its concern with regard to the
ex-parte interim order continuing to operate for years together
without the matter being listed for effective hearing - Interim G'
order - .Ex-parte interim order - .Practice and procedure.
. Santosfi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and
others 2012(3) SCR 1178 ~ relied on
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sar/a
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (5) SCR 1098 =
(2009) 6 SCC 121; UP. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
2004 (2) SCR 369 = (2004) 2 SCC- 473 - referred to.
B
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 116 referred to para 7
2009 (5 ) SCR 1098 referred to para 14
0
(1996) 4 sec 362 referred to para 15
2004 (2 ) SCR 369 referred to para 15
2012(3) SCR 1178 relied on para 16
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5179 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dat~ 22.03.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at JaQlur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
E Special Appeal No. 49 of 2005.
Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal for the Appellant.
The Order of the Court was delivered
F ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing
G constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary, aided by
a proficient bar and supported by the State. However, the
Courts and Tribunals, which the citizens are expected to
approach for redressal of their grievance and protection of their
fundamental, constitutional and legal rights, are beset with the
H problems of delays and costs. In a country where 36 per cent
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 837
ORS.
of the population live below the poverty line, these deficiencies A
in the justice delivery system prevent a large segment of the
population from availing legal remedies. The disadvantaged
and poor are deprived of access to justice because of the costs
of litigation, both in terms of actual expenses and lost
opportunities, and the laudable goal of securing justice - social, B
economic and political enshrined in the Preamble to the
Constitution of India remains an illusion for them. The
infrastructure of Courts and the processes which govern them
are simply inaccessible to the poor. The State, which has been
mandated by Article 39A of the Constitution to ensure that the C
operation of the legal system promotes justice by providing free
legal aid and that opportunities for securing justice are not
denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities, has not been able to create an effective mechanism
for making justice accessible to the poor, downtrodden and
D
disadvantaged. In last two and a half decades the institution of
the legal services authorities has rendered yeoman's service
in the field of providing legal aid to the poor but a lot is required
to be done for ensuring justice to economically deprived section
E
of the society and those who suffer from other disabilities like
illiteracy and ignorance.
3. We have prefaced the disposal of this petition, filed
against order dated 22.~.2007 passed by the Division Bench
of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeal filed F
by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was dismissed as not maintainable, by making the
aforementioned observ,ations because in last almost 20 years
the claimants - the aged parents, wife and five children of Nanag G
Ram, who became a victim of road accident in 1992, must
have exhausted all their resources in prosecuting and contesting
the litigation till the stage of High Court and they must not have
been left with money sufficient for engaging an advocate in this
Court and also because in last almost five years, during which
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A the special leave petition remained pending in this Court, they
must have lost all hopes to get justice. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the
dependants of Nanag Ram under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and enhanced the
B compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') by an amount of Rs.4,85,000/-
and directed the appellant to pay the enhanced compensation
with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date
of filing the claim petition till 31.12.2000 and at the rate of 9
C per cent from 1.1.2001 till the payment thereof, but on account
of ex-parte interim order passed by this Court on 23.7.2007,
the claimants could get a paltry sum of Rs. 2 lakhs .and they
perhaps thought that it will not be worthwhile to spend money
for contesting the special leave petition filed by the appellant.
D This is perhaps the thinking of many thousands of poor litigants,
who succeed in the Courts below and the High Courts but
cannot afford the cost and expenses of contesting litigation in
the highest Court of the country and suffer silently in the name
E of the Almighty God by treating it as their destiny.
4. Nanag Ram died in a road accident which occurred on
9.3.1992 when his motorcycle was struck by a truck ownedby
respondent No.10-Ram Chandra Paliwal and driven by Raghu
Nath, whose name was deleted from the array ofparties vide
F order dated 2.4.2009. At the time of accident, Nanag Ram's
age was about 36 years and he was employed as a Machine
Operator in National Engineering Company Ltd., Jaipur for a
salary of Rs.4,000/- per month.
G 5. The dependants of Nanag Ram filed a petition under
·Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation to the tune
of Rs.24 lakhs by alleging that their bread winner had died due
to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Shri Raghu Nath.
While the owner of the truck and its driver did not file a reply to
H
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 839
ORS.
contest the claim petition, the appellant raised all possible A
objections. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant it was
prayed that the claimants be directed to prove whether the
driver of the offending vehicle was in the employment of the
owner and had a va!id and effective driving licence. The
appellant also sought a direction to the owner for production B
of the original insurance policy and, as is usually done in such
cases, it claimed that the accident was not caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the truck. An alternative plea taken by
the appellant was that if an award is passed, the contributory
negligence of both the drivers be determined. C
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the
parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal also
accepted the claimants' assertion that the deceased was D
employed as a Machine Operator in National Engineering
Company, Jaipur. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence
produced by the claimants on the issue of monthly income of
the deceased and held that it could be taken as Rs.3,000/- per
month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and E
applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal concluded that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f.
5.9.1992.
F
7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took
cognizance of the fact that the employer was annually paying
bonus to the deceased at the rate of 20 per cent of his salary,
referred to the judgment of this Court in General Manager,
Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma G
Thomas (1994) 2 sec 176 and held. that the claimants are
entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,45,300/-. The learned
Single Judge made additions of small amounts towards pains
and sufferings, loss of love and affection, consortium, security
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A and protection and directed the appellant to pay an additional
amount of Rs.4,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum.
8. The special appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed
B by the Division Bench of the High Court by relying upon Section
1OOA of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. On 23.7.2007, this Court ordered notice on the special
leave petition and indirectly stayed the judgment of the learned
C Single Judge of the High Court. For the sake of reference that
order is extracted below:
"Issue notice.
Without prejudice to the claims involved, let the petitioner
D deposit a sum of Rupees three lakhs with the concerned
MACT within four weeks from today. A sum of Rupees two
lakhs shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the clairnant
without furnishing security."
E 10. As is the fate of large number of other special leave
petitions, this petition was not listed before the Court for next
five years for effective hearing and the appellant continued to
enjoy the benefit of ex-parte interim order. For the first time, the
case was listed before the Registrar on 15.10.2008.i.e. after
F almost one year and three months of the issue of notice. The
Registrar noted that notice has not been served upon
respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and an application has been
filed for deleting respondent No. 9 from the array of parties. On
2.4.2009, the application was allowed by the Chamber Judge.
G For next two years an~ five months, the file of the case did not
see the light of the day. On 14.9.2011, the case was listed
before the Registrar, who recorded the statement of the
appellant's counsel that he does not want to bring on· record
the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. On
H
Nl:.W INUIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 841 .
ORS.
12.10.2011, the matter was again listed before the Registrar, A
who directed that the matter be placed before the Chamber
Judge. When the matter was listed before the Chamber Judge,
he noted that the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1
and 3 are already on record. It should be a matter of concern
for those who are associated with this institution as to why an B
ex-parte interim order passed by the Court should continue to
operate for years together without the matter being listed for
effective hearing. If the claimants had been members of
economically affluent sections of the society, they would have
engaged an eminent advocate and taken steps for hearing of C
the matter at an early date but, as noted earlier, they do not
have the financial capacity and resources to engage any
advocate for contesting the special leave petition.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and D
carefully perused the record.
12. In our view, the appellant's challenge to the impugned
order is meritless and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We
are also convinced that this is a fit case in which the Court E
should exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and
enhance the compensation determined by the High Court by
applying appropriate multiplier.
13. We shall first consider whether the High Court was
F
justified in not applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased.
14. In Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
6 SCC 121, the two Judge Bench made an endeavor to
standardise the parameters for determination of the G
compensation payable by the insurer and I or the owner of the
offending vehicle. While dealing with the issue of deduction
towards personal. expenses, the Court made the following
observations:
H
•
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A "We have already noticed that the personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the
income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No
evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the
deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly
B unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will.
obviously tend to .claim that the deceased was very frugal
and did not have any expensive habits and was spending
virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it
may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased
C was a spendthrift, even if he was one.
It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition
to produce evidence to show that the deceased was
spending a considerable part of the income on himself or
o that he was contributing only a small part of the income on
his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise
the deductions to be made under the head of personal and
living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice
of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the
E deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was
married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased
was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of
experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third
deduction got statutory recognition under the Second
F Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicle~ Act, 1988 ("the MV Act", for
short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an
inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline."
G 15. The Bench then referred to the judgments in Kera/a
State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P.SRTC v. Tri/ok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
(2004) 2 sec 473 and held:
H
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 843
ORS.
"Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards A
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is
to apply standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the
view that where the deceased was married, the deduction B
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent
family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members C
exceeds six."
16. The issue was recently considered in Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal
No.3723 of 2012 decided on 23.3.2012) and it was observed: D
"It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the
Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit
without assigning reasons that the deceased would have
spent 1/3rd bf his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards E
personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of
the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court
were totally oblivious of the h<iird realities of the life. It will
be impossible for a person whose monthly income is
Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the F
family consisting offive persons. Ordinarily, such a person
would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or
use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest
for his family."
G
17. National Sample Survey Report No. 527 on Household
Consumer Expenditure in India 2006-07, which has been
prepared after conducting thorough research on the subject
contains the figures of monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE)
for various classes. These are extracted below: H
m 0 tD )>
Table SR: Hreak-un of total monthl\' ocr cdr>ita consumer cx~nditurc ~MPCE) b,r group~~·f items for households in different l\1rCE classes
All-India Rural
CJ)
monlhly per capila expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)
no. ofhhs
reporting
c
lJ
item group consumption ;:u
per m
0- 235 - 270- 320- 365- 410- 455 - 510- 580- 690- 890- 1155 & all IOOO sample s::
235 no 320 365 410 455 510 580 690 890 1155 morc cla.'iSCS
hhs
hhs
m
(I) (2 ()) (5) (6 (7 (8 (9) (10) (Ill (12) (131 (14) (IS (16) ()
cereals 67.12 76.36 "'
H8.88 95.46 96.64 !02.97 !07.42 114.03 120.46 125.43 129.52 144.23 114.RO 986 32847 0
gram 0.27 1.04 0.68 0.50 0.68 0.85 0.64 0.88 l.03 1.33 1.73 2.91 . I.JR 199 7489 c
;:u
cereal substituu.-s 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.21 0.41 0.45 0.83 1.94 0.46 71 2837
pulses and their products 5.14 8.11 11.62 IJ.34 14.45 16.95 18.96 20.54 22.68 27.02 31.42 40.IS 22.67 973 3238) -I
milk and milk products 2.K6 9.39 8.73 1207 19.43 27.33 31.27 39.97 52.41 75.89 96.72 151.72 56.23 766 263801
edible oil 7.85 11.47 15.38 16.82 18.93 21.SO 23.16 25.36 27.37 32.01 36.68 44.49 27.22 982 32649 ;:u
egg, fish and rn.:al 3.38 6.31 7.44 10.39 13.29 JS.00 17.75 19.79 24.31 29.50 38.74 52.13 24.32 616 23272 m
vegetables 14.91 20.67 25.39 28.91 30.20 34.50 36.62 40.01 44.79 49.98 56.44 67.88 43.06 986 32826 lJ
fruits: fresh I.II 1.46 2.01 2.82 3.70 4.18 5.19 6.17 8.99 11.75 lb.75 32.28 10.02 773 27530 0
fruits: dry 0.04 0.08 O.JO 0.81 0.74 1.04 J.14 1.56 1.87 2.69 4.30 8.82 2.45 298 10146 ;:u
suga.- 3.21 5.06 6.16 7.07 8.IO 9.05 10.77 12.04 14.07 17.12 20.61 27.87 14.04 957 318801 -I
salt 0.69 0.79 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.14 J.14 1.21 1.38 . 1.5 I 1.77 1.99 j.34 985 32772 CJ)
spices 5.32 7.50 8.30 9.70 J0.77 J 1.63 12.54 13.90 15.28 17.18 20.19 24.27 14.96 985 32761
beverages, etc. S.09 7.46 10.29 11.72 14.78 16.27 19.10 22.21 25.79 33.65 46.72 92.60 30.67 982 32800
total: food 117.01 155.76 186.IO 210.63 232.76 262-53 285.92 317.88 360.84 425.SO 502.44 693.32 363.42 999 33123
pan 0.23 0.41 0.96 1.44 1.87 1.65 J.74 1.99 2.92 3.26 4.67 4.43 2.64 305 10407
tobacco 1.91 3.84 4.80 S.97 5.68 6.05 7.40 8.71 9.02 9.89 11.05 15.17 8,70 618 19528
intoxicants 1.92 2.28 3.58 3.40 4.91 4.11 4.22 4.53 5.90 6.35 7.77 17.63 6.36 181 6278
fuel and light 31.32 36.04 35.25 39.35 43.42 47.66 51.54 58.75 65.74 75.82 90.22 123.85 66.07 995 33093
clothing 15.69 17.42 20.07 23.48 26.64 27.53 32.96 36.54 41.49 49.31 n.54 85.99 42.42 997 33076
footwear 2.26 2.08 2.14 2.71 3.50 3.62 4.36 5.07 5.98 7.97 .27 15.73 6.53 972 32368 en
,
CJ)
()
;:u
z_
m
~
Table SR (contd.): Break-up of total monthly pe~ capita co~sumcr expenditure (Ml'CE) by groups. of itc.nts f~r h.;u.Cholds in different MPCE
classes z
All-India I Rural 0
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on ikm group for housc.-holds in MPCE class (Rs.) no. ofhhs reporting )>
consumotion
item group sample
)>
O· 23S. 270- 320- 365- 410- 4S5 - SlO - 580- 690· 890- 1155& all J'C' (/)
23S 270 320 36S 410 455 SlO 580 690 890 llSS more classes 1000 hhs
(/)
.hhs
I) f2J (3) (4 (S) (6 17) (8) {9 (10) {I I) 112 {13) {14) {15) 116) c
education 1.91 2.14 2.98 S.32 6.07 7.19 8.70 11.03 15.74 24.54 33.70 9S.17 22.16 615 21722 :;o
medical-institutional 0.2S 0.S8 0.80 1.57. 4.07 4.14 3.67 4.4.:? SAO 11.31 24.02 94.38 IS.SS 127 5076 )>
medical-non-inst.
entertainment
S.26
0.64
5.63
0.69
9.85
0.50
11.75
0.81
11.90
1.71
17.98
1.34
19.29
2.40
23.94
2.34
28.05
:um
42.80
4.68
S7,93
8.76
125.53
18.36
36.74
4.74
685
279
23349
11404
Oz
;o ()
goods for personal care 0.23 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.92 0.59 1.08 1.41 1.44 1.99 2.52 4.61 1.63 IS3 5460
(/) m
toilet articles
sundry articles
5.42
3.98
6.32
5.45
7.60
5.95
9.41
7.14
10.25
8.10
11.42
9.31
12.79
10.38
14.49
12.18
16.79
14.26
20.18
17.12
24.61
22.46
43.52
31.90
17.87
14.6S
994
993
32966
32916 . ()
cons. services excluding 0
conveyance 4.31 5.46 7.29 8.20 9.96 11.85 14.33 16.21 21.56 JO.SI 48.92 109.15 29.09 968 31867
conveyance 2.60 4.07 3.26 4.S9 7.16 7.57 ID.II 12.04 15.42 26.39 44.51 114.97 25.77 754 27051 r
rent 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.23 0.37 0.77 0.65 0.94 2.48 4.31 19.31 3.00 63 2648 -I
taxes and ccsscs O.OS 0.09 0.22 0.47 0.38 0.58 0.84 0.90 1.16 l.85 2.74 6.46 1'6S 347 13380 0
durable goods total 2.45 6.20 4.S9 6.4S 6.26 7.44 8.54 11.57 IS.76 17.77 40.S7 138.13 26.18 844 27399
, total: non-food 80.44 99.0S 110.10 132.70 153.03 170.40 195.11 226.78 271.40 354.20 499.56 1064.28 331.75 1000 33145 :-:::
total e1:penditare 197.45 254.81 296.20 343.33 385.79 432.93 481.03 544.66 632.23 779.69 1002.01 1757.60 695.16 1000 33146
clothing: second hand 029 1.12 0.36 0.29 0.39 0.40 o.so 0.26 0.21 0.33 0.27 0.19 0.33 69 2761 G)
footwear: second hand o.oi 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 8 409
0
2nd hand dbrable goods 0.05. 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 o.os o.os 0.34 0.94 S.00 0.65 8 305
ostd. no. hhs(OO)
cstd. no. pcrs(OO)
19254
93943
27459
159161
S7024
336277
72159
402184
107622
628S41
118332
646317
146398
769698
170830 242565 259952 186193 200894 1608681
883179 1133508 1197816 7999S8 . 733037 7783617
~
r
no. of sample households 228 299 698 1137 15S9 1888 2413 3190 4580 6029 46S4 6471 33146
no. of sample persons 1167 1785 4262 6569 9053 10427 13327 16902 23846 29967 21960 25820 165085
Qo
'
00
~
(11
::c m 0 OJ )>
:::c .,, m Cl () OJ )>
00
~
O>
Table SU: Breakwup of total monthly per capita consumer cxpendilure-(MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE dasscs
en
All-India Urban
c
no. ofhhs "'U
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.) rcpoiting :::0
consumn1ion m
0- 335- 395- 485- 580- 675- 790- 930- 1100- 1380- ISSO- 2540& all
per
1000 sample hhs
s::
m
335 395 485 580 675 790 930 1100 1380 1880 2540 more classes
hhs
ti\ (2) 13l 141 15) 16 17 18 19 110 (I I 112 113 114' 115) 116 ()
cereals 72.87 85.96 90.75 99.71 105.84 107.86 114.19 117.79 124.64 131.56 142.38 151.16 118.80 948 29024 0
gram
cereal substirutcs
0.42
0.06
0.47
0.09
0.56
0.20
0.74
0.34
0.94
0.26
1.02
0.44
1.40
0.44
1.73
0.46
2.02
0.52
2.44
0.60
2.55
0.75
3.00
1.02
1.68
0.50
271
88
8232
2256
c
pulses and their products 12.12 15.17 17.13 20.62 22.74 . 25.13 27.37 29.24 32.13 36.60 40.93 47.25 30.06 938 28697
:::0
milk and milk products 11.25 20.39 25.29 33.76 46.68 57.SO 69.83 89.31 !07.14 138.0I 161.88 235.62 97.49 893 27409 --i
edible oil 14.12 18.39 20.81 23.42 27.76 30.42 33.38 36.21 42.06 46.33 52.12 59.81 37.52 941 28810 :::0
egg, fish and meat
vegetables
6.93
20.84
I0.97
27.36
15.13
30.75
19.44
37.88
24.33
39.80
25.20
43.50
29.93
50.49
30.71
54.18
37.40
62.46
41.02
70.31
51.46
77.18
67.53
98.71
34.20
56.87
571
943
17945
28884
m
fruits: fresh 2.63 3.59 4.62 7.01 8.63 10.16 13.03 15.39 21.44 29.66 40.18 71.11 21.97 887 27616
"'U
fruits: dry 0.44 0.87 1.31 1.35 1.73 2.54 2.78 3.62 4.81 7.18 13.28 23.46 6.03 419 13278 0
sugar 7.14 8.67 I0.65 11.01 13.41 14.71 16.05 17.94 19.17 20.20 22.76 25.53 17.25 933 28576 :::0
salt 0.88 0.96 1.10 1.21 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.68 1.82 1.88 2.03 2.35 1.66 942 28847 --i
spices 7.70 10.20 12.02 13.98 14.97 16.37 17.37 19.08 20.40 21.50 23.75 28.40 18.82 941 28825 en
beverages, etc.. 13.00 16.89 18.39 25.11 29.26 35.05 41.58 50.99 66.57 91.22 126.27 271.33 74.42 997 30485
total: food 170.42 219.98 248;70 295..59 337.73 371.37 419.42 468.Jl 542.58 638.49 757.Sl 1086~ 517.25 999 30562
pan 0.72 1.30 1.88 2.66 2.21 2.62 2.78 3.02 3.82 3.66 4.41 4. 3.12 199 7097
tobacco 3.81 4.36 5.90 8.08 6.78 8.22 8.81 9.26 8.85· 10.00 9.92 17.03 . 9.22 356 J0914
intoxicants I.SO 1.69 3.44 4.38 5.16 4.28 5.40 4.49 6.31 7.21 6.73 16.04 6.24 99 3164
fue1 and light 38.42 47.01 56.77 64.68 73.68 85.05 92.24 I07.32 123.75 143.54 171.36 255.81 117.44 993 30384
clothing 19.05 22.96 28.70 31.85 37.90 43.39 49.12 59.90 67.98 85.86 114.21 188.80 70.25 997 30498
footwear 2.59 3.12 4.21 4.67 5.95 7.22 8.53 10.36 12.49 16.94 23.06 38.19 13.07 985 30137 O>
en
()
:::0
Table SU (contd.): Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer cxpenditure.(MPCE) by groups of items for households in different Ml'CE z
classes · · m
~
All India Urban
no! ofhhs
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)
repclrting z
consumption
item gr~up 0
. )>
. 0. 335 - 395. 485. 580. 675 - 790- 930- 1100- 1380- 1880- 2540& all '""
1000
Sample
)>
hhs
335 395 485 580 675 790 930 1100 1380 1880 2540 more classes hhs (J)
(I) .
(3) (5) . (7 . (11) (13) (14 (15) (16) (J)
121 (4) (6) (8) (9) (10) (12)
education 5.27 6.35 11.39 13.21 11.68 2658 38.02 48.73 68.4-1 110.25 182.02 424.68 91.60 721 22518 c
medical-institutional 2.34 1.10 2.43 6.17 3.9-1 8.64 10.39 12.16 lb.90 14.35 40.18 128.41 24.35 140 4199 ;;u
medical-non-inst. 8 ..69 12.90 18.23 24.15 25.34 34.30 44.93 46.19 55.71 73.29 95.96 167.96 58.23 718 21973 )>
entertainment
goods for personal care
O.T!
0.2.2
1.60 2.91 4.97 7.14 9.09 12.55 16.06 22.37 32.77 48.10 87.27 24.05 581 19683
Oz
toilet articles 8.77
0.37
I0.66
0.51 0.59 0.67 1.15 1.41 2.36
27.43
2.08 3.30 6.58 10.97
72.65
2.88
31.82
133
998
5258
30516
;;u ()
sundry articles
12.76 15.53 18.44 21.17 24.14 32.82 41.09 52.05
oo m
cons. services excluding
6.18 8.35 9.75 12.27 14.40 16.87 19.41 21.50 26.65 33.32 43.24 63.92 26.09 992 30388
. ()
·conveyance 7.04 9.85 13.50 15.78 21.54 29.19 38.73 54.04 75.79 118.46 201.07 447.~ 98.57 979 29926 0
conveyance 4.61 4.88 7.09 10.77 18.12 23.05 29.58 45.66 67.06 103.32 162.52 369.38 81.63 842 26258
rent 3.25 5.98. 7.08 12.33 14.33 24.18 32.43 46.06 59.31 91.58 125.05 264.55 66.96 365 10449 r
taxes arid cesscs 0.65 1.56 1.96 2.31· 3.41 5.00 5.68 7.42 8.76 11.72 18.93 42.49 10.52 521 16087 -I
durable goodS total 2.59 3.85 5.71 7.37 9.53 12.40 15.83 20.77 28.46 51.14 96.82 382.12 59.21 818 24981 0
tobd: non-food 116.48 147.88 194.23 241.77 290.24 362.40 43997 542.72 687.SS 961.82 1402.21 2982.06 795.25 1000 30583
total e&P._c:nditvre 286.90 367.85 442.94 537.36 859AO 1011.04 1230.14 1600.31 2159.72 4068.34 1312.50 30583
c!Olhing:"scconcl hand 0.82 0.53 0.39 0.31
627.96
0.32
733.77
0.34 0.30 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.25
1000 :<::
38 1587
f__,,,: second hand 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 O.oJ 0.02 9 276 G)
2°' hand durable good< 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.50 1.08 0.87 6.14 0.92 II 304
i~rcnt 50.98 60.83 73.44 91.30 107.16 123.44 143.57 170.39 211.24 284.56 472.82 826.60 245.22 653 20248
0
cstd. no. hhs(OO) 6764 9524 23316 37046 38559 46300 58647 62420 78203 82775 58892 75987 578434
~
cstd. no. pcrs(OO)
no. of sample. households
36334
265
59014 138395
335 837
195388
1259
207808
1423
228906
1795
275815 215004 324424 312892 .209981 219963 2483925
2269 2561 3939 5885 4739 5276 30583
c
no. of sample persons 1539. 2101 4983 6902 7623 9220 11009 11810 17022 23096 16372 15151 126828 !<"'
(X)
m 0 () )> "'.....
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A 18. Here, we are dealing with a case in which the
deceased had 8 dependents including four sons and one
daughter. The question which arises for our consideration is
whether in 1992 a person having an income of less than
Rs.3,000/- and a family of 9 could think of spending 1/3rd of
B his income on himself. On a conservative estimate, it is possible
to say, he would have spent at least 50% of the income on the
purchase of foodgrains, milk, etc., and for payment of water,
electricity and other bills. 25% of the income would have been
spent on the education of children which would have included
c school/college fee, cost of books, etc. 15% of the income would
have been used for meeting other family necessities, like,
clothes, medical expenses, etc. He would have then been left
with 10% of his income, a portion of which could be used to
meet unforeseen contingencies and on the occasion of
festivals. In this scenario, any deduction towards personal
0
expenses would be unrealistic. In any case, where the family
of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an
income of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, it is virtually impossible for
him to spend more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself.
E 19. What we have observed hereinabove may not apply
to rich people living in urban areas who can afford to spend a
substantial amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drinks
parties. In those cases, there may be a semblance of
justification in applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction but it would
F be wholly unrealistic to universally apply that rule in all cases.
20. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the
learned Single Judge of the High Court did not commit any
error by not following the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards the
G personal expenses of the deceased.
21. We are also of the view that the High Court was justified
in determining the amount of compensation by granting 100%
increase in the income of the deceased. In the normal course,
the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that
H period his salary would have certainly doubled because the
NEW !NOIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI & 849
ORS.
employer was paying 20% of his salary as bonus per year. A
22. The issue which remains to be considered is whether
the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error by applying
the multiplier of 10.
23.. In Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), 8
this Court considered the question relating to selection of
multiplier, referred to the judgments in Kera/a State Road
Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra),
U.P.SRTC v. Tri/ok Chandra (supra) and the Second Schedule
appended to the Act and held : c
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be
as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared
by applying Susa·mma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for 0
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 E
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."
24. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the age
of the deceased was 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal and the
High Court were not right in applying the multiplier of 10. They F
should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
25. In the result, the appeal i~missed. However, with a
view to do complete justice to the claimants, we suo motu re- G
determine the amount of compensation in the following terms
by applying the multiplier of 15 and hold that the claimants are
entitled to a total amount of Rs.10,63,040/-:
Amount of compensation with 12 months
salary and 15 as multiplier : Rs. 5378 x 12 x 15 = H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A Rs.9,68,040 [Rs.2,689 pm x 2= Rs. 5,378/- pm]
Compensation to Family members
for loss of love & affection, deprivation
of protection, social security, etc. Rs.70,000/-
B Compensation to the widow of the
deceased for loss of love & affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of consortium,
deprivation of protection, social security, etc. : Rs.25,000/
c Total Compensation Rs.10,63,040
{Rs.9,68,040 + Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 25,000)
26. The claimants shall also get interest on the enhanced
compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
D filing the claim petition.
27. The appellant is directed to pay the enhanced I
additional compensation and interest to the claimants within a
period of six weeks by getting a demand draft prepared in the
E name of respondent No.2, that is, the widow of the deceased.
The latter shall invest 50% of the amount in a fixed deposit of
three years term in a nationalized bank.
28. Since the appellant had enjoyed the ex-parte interim
order passed by this Court for a period of five years, it is
F directed to pay cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants.
29. The appellant shall submit compliance report in the
Registry of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The
Registry shall list the matter before an appropriate Bench for
G perusal of the report. If the Bench finds that the appellant has
failed to comply with the directions contained in this order, it
shall initiate proceedings against the officers of the appellant
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also order recovery
of the amount as arrears of land revenue.
H R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident compensation"Sign in to search