2008 JTR(SC) 132
2008 ACJ 830 ; 2008 ACJ 930 ; 2008 64 AIC 209 ; 2009 1 AICJ 232 ; 2008 AIR(SC) 1221 ; 2008 AIR(SCW) 1213 ; 2008 71 AllLR 164 ; 2008 2 ALT(SC) 77 ; 2008 2 ApexCJ(SC) 528 ; 2008 1 DNJ 175 ; 2008 2 JCR(SC) 154 ; 2008 Supp2 KLT 721 ; 2008 3 MLJ 276 ; 2008 2 MPHT 348 ; 2008 2 PLR(SC) 266 ; 2008 1 RCR(Civ) 885 ; 2008 3 RLW(Raj) 2189 ; 2008 2 Scale 10 ; 2008 3 SCC 379 ; 2008 1 SCC(Civ) 884 ; 2008 2 SCC(Cri) 42 ; 2008 2 SCR 22 ; 2008 UAD 481 ; 2008 KHC 4245 ; 2008 1 Supreme 566
2008(1) Supreme 566
Supreme Court of india
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
The APSRTC, rep. by its General Manager and Anr. — Petitioners
versus
M. Ramadevi and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 682 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11647 of 2004)
Decided on : 25-01-2008
important point
The MV Act does not prohibit the Tribunal/court from awarding a compensation in excess of the claimed amount.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.166
(A) Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Tribunal and the High Court to adjudicate claims for compensation in respect of death caused by rash or negligent driving and to determine the quantum of just compensation based on evidence on record. The provisions contemplate an independent assessment of liability, income, and appropriate multipliers, without restricting the court to the amount claimed, and permit enhancement where justice so demands.
(B) The key legal principles are: compensation under Section 166 is meant to be just and reasonable; the Tribunal and High Court have discretion to fix income and apply multiplier; there is no bar on awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount; and the interest rate may be modified by the court.
Facts of the case:
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the family of a deceased employee alleging death due to rash and negligent driving of a corporation-owned bus. The Tribunal fixed compensation based on assessed income and a multiplier, awarding a total amount. The corporation appealed, challenging the adequacy of the award. The High Court enhanced the compensation, adjusting income, multiplier, and interest. The corporation further challenged the enhancement on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly assessed the deceaseds income and applied the multiplier; there was no restriction preventing the award from exceeding the claimed sum; and the reduction of interest to 9% was within judicial discretion. The court also directed the balance amount to be deposited.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could enhance compensation beyond the amount claimed; whether the income assessment and multiplier were correct; and whether the interest rate could be modified.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the court is not constrained by the claimed amount and may award just compensation based on evidence, including appropriate income assessment and multiplier, while retaining power to adjust interest rates.
Result:
The appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the corporation to pay the balance compensation within six weeks as determined by the Tribunal.
(A) Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Tribunal and the High Court to adjudicate claims for compensation in respect of death caused by rash or negligent driving and to determine the quantum of just compensation based on evidence on record. The provisions contemplate an independent assessment of liability, income, and appropriate multipliers, without restricting the court to the amount claimed, and permit enhancement where justice so demands.
(B) The key legal principles are: compensation under Section 166 is meant to be just and reasonable; the Tribunal and High Court have discretion to fix income and apply multiplier; there is no bar on awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount; and the interest rate may be modified by the court.
Facts of the case:
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the family of a deceased employee alleging death due to rash and negligent driving of a corporation-owned bus. The Tribunal fixed compensation based on assessed income and a multiplier, awarding a total amount. The corporation appealed, challenging the adequacy of the award. The High Court enhanced the compensation, adjusting income, multiplier, and interest. The corporation further challenged the enhancement on appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly assessed the deceaseds income and applied the multiplier; there was no restriction preventing the award from exceeding the claimed sum; and the reduction of interest to 9% was within judicial discretion. The court also directed the balance amount to be deposited.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could enhance compensation beyond the amount claimed; whether the income assessment and multiplier were correct; and whether the interest rate could be modified.
Ratio Decidendi:
Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the court is not constrained by the claimed amount and may award just compensation based on evidence, including appropriate income assessment and multiplier, while retaining power to adjust interest rates.
Result:
The appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the corporation to pay the balance compensation within six weeks as determined by the Tribunal.
judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant-Corporation had filed an appeal before the High Court questioning correctness of the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Addl. District Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
3.Background facts are as follows:
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of M. Nageshwar Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in an accident on 18.5.1998. The deceased was working as a driver of the appellant-Corporation. In the claim petition it was stated that the because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No.A.P.10 Z 998 belonging to the Corporation which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased lost his life. It was claimed that the deceased was 38 years of age and was an employee of the Corporation and was earning salary of Rs.4,467.50 p.m. The appellant-Corporation filed its objection before the Tribunal taking the stand that it was not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum of salary claimed and the age was also disputed.
4.The Tribunal observed that the age of the deceased was 40 years of age and he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and after deduction his take home pay was Rs.2,367/- and the total emoluments was Rs.3,983/-. Applying the multiplier of 12 the entitlement was fixed at Rs.2,16,000/-, in addition Rs.15,000/- for non-pecuniary damages and Rs.5,000/- as consortium was awarded. Thus the total compensation awarded was fixed at Rs.2,46,000/-. The same was directed to be paid with interest @ 12% p.a.
5.The appellant-Corporation filed appeal before the High Court. It is to be noted that the claimants did not prefer any appeal. The High Court held that the award as made was inadequate and just compensation was not awarded.
6.The High Court was of the view that the pay of the deceased was Rs.3,536/- and not Rs.2,367/- as noted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it fixed the basic pay of Rs.3,500/- after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses. The monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.2,333/- and the annual contribution at Rs.27,996/-. The multiplier was taken at 12. Accordingly, entitlement was fixed at Rs.3,35,952/- to which was added the sum of Rs.20,000/- additionally awarded by the Tribunal.
7.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when there was no appeal by the claimants in the appeal filed by the appellant-corporation, the High Court should not have enhanced the amount. It was also submitted that the multiplier as adopted was high.
8.Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no embargo on the Tribunal or the High Court awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It was also submitted that the interest was reduced to 9% from 12% as fixed by the Tribunal. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no infirmity in the High Courts order.
9.In Nagappa vs. Gurdial Singh and Ors.,1 (2003 (2) SCC 274) para 21 as follows:
“21.For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.”
10.The other question that remains to be adjudicated is whether the income has been rightly adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court was correct and whether the correct multiplier was adopted.
11.Considering the figure in the Ex.A/7 the monthly income taken at Rs.3,000/- after deducting 1/3rd therefrom the annual contribution is fixed at Rs.24,000/-.
12.Adopting the multiplier of 10, the amount payable to the claimants comes to Rs.2,40,000/- to that shall be added the amount of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages and consortium as there was no challenge by the Corporation to the award of such amounts. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant comes to Rs.2,60,000/-. The interest rate of 9% fixed by the High Court does not warrant any interference. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited by the Corporation pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 19.7.2004. Admittedly, the same has been withdrawn by the claimants. The balance amount shall be deposited by the appellant-Corporation within six weeks from today. Tribunal shall fix the terms for withdrawal/deposit of the amount in FDs as deemed appropriate.
13.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
***********