2004 JTR(SC) 196
2004 ACJ 699 ; 2004 15 AIC 11 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 7475 ; 2004 54 AllLR 702 ; 2004 1 ApexCJ(SC) 478 ; 2004 2 AWC 1837 ; 2004 3 CivLJ 410 ; 2004 DNJ 195 ; 2004 ILR(Kar) 2212 ; 2004 2 JT 432 ; 2004 2 PLR(SC) 210 ; 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 619 ; 2004 2 Scale 428 ; 2004 2 SCC 473 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 577 ; 2004 2 SCR 369 ; 2004 1 WBLR 589 ; 2004 1 WLC 596 ; 2004 KHC 443 ; 2004 1 Supreme 1059
2004(1) Supreme 1059
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Fakeerappa and Anr. -Appellants
versus
Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22032/2002)
Decided on 13-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey, P.P. Singh, Advocate (NP), Debasis Misra, Advocate (NP).
IMPORTANT POINT
What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application but if the deceased was aged about 27 years and a bachelor, it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one third of the monthly income of the deceased.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.10
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.166, S.173, .
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read in conjunction with Order X Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, governs compensation claims arising from vehicular accidents. These provisions frame the procedure for filing claim petitions, determining liability, assessing quantum of damages, and adjudicating appeals against tribunal orders. The Act provides the statutory mechanism for victims or their dependents to seek compensation from insurers or responsible parties. Sections 166 and 173 specifically outline the powers of the tribunal and the hierarchy of appeals, ensuring structured resolution of disputes involving personal injury or death. The present case falls within this statutory framework, where the compensation amount, multiplier, and interest rate are determined and subject to judicial review on appeal.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) compensation for loss of dependency is calculated based on the deceased's monthly income, applying a reasonable multiplier after accounting for personal expenses; (ii) the percentage deduction for personal expenditure is not rigid and depends on case-specific circumstances; (iii) the rate of interest on compensation is generally not revisable if not challenged before the lower forum; (iv) the multiplier and deduction percentages are subject to appellate scrutiny only if preserved through proper objection; (v) parties must be impleaded with care and proper application of mind to avoid abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
A deceased aged 27 years died in a vehicular accident. The claimant parents filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was earning 2000 per month. The Tribunal allowed a multiplier of 18, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and awarded 2 lakh with 6% interest from the date of application. The claimant's appeal before the High Court was dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed part of the appeal, adjusting the personal expense deduction to one-third.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the deceased was a bachelor, and the parents' ages in the petition were unbelievable. It held that a 50% deduction was not warranted in the absence of marriage, and a one-third deduction was more appropriate. The Court also noted that since the rate of interest was not challenged before the High Court, it would not interfere. The impleading of the High Court and Government as respondents was criticized as an abuse of process.
Issues:
(i) Whether the deduction of 50% for personal expenses is justified in the case of a bachelor deceased? (ii) Whether the rate of interest of 6% can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court? (iii) Whether the multiplier of 18 was appropriate? (iv) Whether the impleading of various authorities was proper and non-abusive?
Ratio Decidendi:
The personal expense deduction depends on the circumstances of each case. For a bachelor deceased, a one-third deduction is more reasonable. The rate of interest is not revisable if not challenged below. The multiplier is subject to appellate review only if the contention was raised and preserved in the prior proceedings. Courts must ensure proper parties are impleaded without abuse of process.
Result:
The appeal was allowed in part. The deduction for personal expenses was reduced to one-third. No order as to costs. The impleading of the High Court and Government was condemned as an abuse of process.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read in conjunction with Order X Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, governs compensation claims arising from vehicular accidents. These provisions frame the procedure for filing claim petitions, determining liability, assessing quantum of damages, and adjudicating appeals against tribunal orders. The Act provides the statutory mechanism for victims or their dependents to seek compensation from insurers or responsible parties. Sections 166 and 173 specifically outline the powers of the tribunal and the hierarchy of appeals, ensuring structured resolution of disputes involving personal injury or death. The present case falls within this statutory framework, where the compensation amount, multiplier, and interest rate are determined and subject to judicial review on appeal.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) compensation for loss of dependency is calculated based on the deceased's monthly income, applying a reasonable multiplier after accounting for personal expenses; (ii) the percentage deduction for personal expenditure is not rigid and depends on case-specific circumstances; (iii) the rate of interest on compensation is generally not revisable if not challenged before the lower forum; (iv) the multiplier and deduction percentages are subject to appellate scrutiny only if preserved through proper objection; (v) parties must be impleaded with care and proper application of mind to avoid abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
A deceased aged 27 years died in a vehicular accident. The claimant parents filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was earning 2000 per month. The Tribunal allowed a multiplier of 18, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and awarded 2 lakh with 6% interest from the date of application. The claimant's appeal before the High Court was dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed part of the appeal, adjusting the personal expense deduction to one-third.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the deceased was a bachelor, and the parents' ages in the petition were unbelievable. It held that a 50% deduction was not warranted in the absence of marriage, and a one-third deduction was more appropriate. The Court also noted that since the rate of interest was not challenged before the High Court, it would not interfere. The impleading of the High Court and Government as respondents was criticized as an abuse of process.
Issues:
(i) Whether the deduction of 50% for personal expenses is justified in the case of a bachelor deceased? (ii) Whether the rate of interest of 6% can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court? (iii) Whether the multiplier of 18 was appropriate? (iv) Whether the impleading of various authorities was proper and non-abusive?
Ratio Decidendi:
The personal expense deduction depends on the circumstances of each case. For a bachelor deceased, a one-third deduction is more reasonable. The rate of interest is not revisable if not challenged below. The multiplier is subject to appellate review only if the contention was raised and preserved in the prior proceedings. Courts must ensure proper parties are impleaded without abuse of process.
Result:
The appeal was allowed in part. The deduction for personal expenses was reduced to one-third. No order as to costs. The impleading of the High Court and Government was condemned as an abuse of process.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. Appellants were the parents of one Yallappa Angadi (hereinafter referred to as deceased ) who died in a vehicular accident. The appellant No.1 filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act ) in the Court of First Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T. Dharwad (in short the Tribunal ) claiming compensation. In the Claim Petition the appellant No.2 herein, i.e. the mother of the deceased was added as a formal party-respondent No.5. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. It accepted that the deceased was getting Rs. 2000/- p.m. On that basis to work out loss of dependency multiplier of 18 was adopted after deducting 50% of the income for personal expenses. A total sum of Rupees two lakhs with 6% interest per annum from the date of application was awarded as compensation.
3. An appeal was preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the Act praying for an increase of the compensation. The High Court by the impugned judgment found no merit and dismissed the same.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that two points fall for adjudication. Firstly, whether the deduction of half of the monthly income for personal expenditure is justified, and secondly whether the award of 6% interest per annum is justified.
5. Though the respondents have been served notice, only counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer ).
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there cannot be any rigid formula as to what would be the percentage or quantum of deduction. The Tribunal and the High Court have taken note of the relevant aspects to hold that 50% deduction would be appropriate. There is no scope for any interference with the percentage of deduction as fixed. Further, before the High Court there was no challenge to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the first time before this Court such a grievance cannot be raised. It is also submitted that multiplier of 18 as adopted is on the higher side.
7. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction.
8. It has to be noted that the ages of the parents as disclosed in the Claim Petition were totally unbelievable. If the deceased was aged about 27 years as found at the time of post mortem and about which there is no dispute, the father and mother could not have been aged 38 years and 35 years respectively as claimed by them in the Claim Petition. Be that as it may, taking into account special features of the case we feel it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income. Though the multiplier adopted appears to be slightly on the higher side, the plea taken by the insurer cannot be accepted as there was no challenge by the insurer to the fixation of the multiplier before the High Court and even in the appeal filed by the appellants before the High Court the plea was not taken.
9. Since there was no question raised about the correctness of the rate of interest before the High Court, we do not find any scope for interference with the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of any challenge to it before the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.
10. Before we part with the case we think it necessary to point out a somewhat shocking state of affairs which came to our notice. In the Claim Petition filed before the Tribunal, this Court and the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore were impleaded as respondents for no sensible reason, and in gross abuse of process of law, though by hindsight absurdity seems to have been set right by ordering deletion. Though these parties were given up during adjudication, it is clear that the Claim Petition was filed without any application of mind by the counsel concerned as to who would be proper or necessary party or even a formal party and great sense of responsibility is expected to be exhibited by those concerned. At least while impleading a party in Claim Petition, proper attention ought to be devoted which sadly was not done.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
***************
00034