http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

HERDEO KAUR AND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992

BENCH:

KULDIP SINGH (J)

BENCH:

KULDIP SINGH (J)

YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1261 1992 SCR (2) 272

1992 SCC (2) 567 JT 1992 (2) 409

1992 SCALE (1)662

ACT:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

Section 110 and 110-B-Accident claim-Award of

compensation-Criteria for-Determination of-Adoption of

Liberal approach-Need for.

HEADNOTE:

The first appellant, her husband a young Army officer

of 36 years and their two minor sons were injured in a road

accident when the respondent-State Road Transport

Corporation's bus struck against the car in which they were

travelling. While the appellant's husband succumbed to the

injuries, one of he sons received multiple injuries and

another received injury on the forehead and multiple

abrasions on various parts of the body. The first

appellant, however, received minor injuries.

The first appellant, her two minor sons and daughter

filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver.

Regarding quantum of compensation, it held that the deceased

was spending half of his salary on his personal needs, that

the normal life expectancy of the deceased, who was 36 years

of age when the mishap occurred, was 20 years since the

normal life span of an army Officer was 56 years and,

therefore, a compensation of Rs. 2,64,000 should be awarded

for the loss of the deceased's and that after deduction of

1/3 on account of lumpsum payment, an amount of Rs. 1,76,000

should be paid as damages to heirs of the deceased. The

Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3.000 and Rs.1,000 respectively to

the two sons. It further awarded interest at the rate of 6

per cent per annum from the date of application before the

Tribunal till the date of realisation. The widow and her

children filed appeal before the High Court for enhancement

of compensation but the same was dismissed.

In the appeal, by special leave, before this Court on

behalf of the

273

widow, and her minor children, it was contended that the

finding of the Courts below that the deceased, being an army

officer used to spend one half of his salary on personal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

expenditure, was grossly erroneous and based on mere

surmised and conjectures, that it was specifically pleaded

before the Tribunal that the deceased used to spend nearly

Rs. 1,400 per month on his family, which was solely

dependent upon him, that there was no basis to take the life

span of an army officer to be 56 years, and it should be

taken to be 70 years in the modern environments, that the

deduction of 1/3rd assessed compensation on account of

lumpsum payment was wholly unjustified, that the

compensation awarded to the minor children was on the lower

side and that no compensation was awarded for loss of

consortium to wife and the minor children

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1.1 There was no basis or justification before

the Tribunal to have reached the finding that the deceased

was spending half of the salary on himself. On the other

hand, it was specifically claimed by the appellants that he

was spending nearly Rs. 1,400 per month to support his

family. It is common knowledge that personal needs of army

officers including drinks are supplied to them at a

subsidised price through the Army canteens. Therefore, the

finding of the courts below is set aside. The deceased was

spending Rs. 1,400 per month on his family. [277B-C]

1.2 The span of life should be taken to be 70 years in

view of the high rise in life expectancy. It is specially

so in the case of Army officers who are disciplined to live

an active and energetic life. the courts below were,

therefore, not justified in taking the normal span of life

to be 60 years and that of an Army officer 56 years. [277D]

Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ 172, applied.

1.3 The deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed

compensation on account of lumpsum payment is not justified.

The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has

come to an end, 15 years thereafter. The delay in the final

disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all

other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws

of compensation and added to that the monstrous inflation

and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the

compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter of its

value when it is received after such a long time. With the

274

value of rupee dwinding, due to high rate of inflation,

there is no justification for making deduction due to

lumpsum payment. Therefore, the courts below were not

justified in making lumpsum deduction in this case.

[277E-F, G]

Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd v. J.K. Modi,

(1981) ACJ 507; Manju Shri Raha v. B.L. Gupta (1977) ACJ 134

and India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, (1980) ACJ 55,

relied on.

1.4 The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that

there is time bound consideration for promotion in the Army.

Apart from that there have been upward revisions in the pay-

scales of Army personnel. No compensation was awarded for

the loss of consortium to the wife and children. Even the

life expectancy was taken to be as low as 56. Considering

all these circumstances a multiplier of 24 would meet the

ends of justice.

[278B-C]

1.5 Thus, the annual amount which the deceased was

spending for his family comes to Rs.16,800 (Rs. 1400 x 12)

which multiplied by 24 comes to Rs.4,03,200. Therefore, the

amount of damages to be allowed to the appellant-claimants

is assessed at Rs.4,03,200. [278D]

1.6 The Tribunal was right in holding that the injuries

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

on the person of the first appellant were not such as to

entitle her to claim compensation. However, the

compensation awarded to the young boys is on the lower side.

It should be Rs. 10,000 in the case of first son and

Rs.5,000 in the case of second son. [278E]

1.7 In the circumstances, the claimants are entitled to

a total sum of Rs.4,18,200 as damages on account of the

death of the first appellant's husband and injuries received

by the two sons. They are also entitled to claim interest

@ 12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal from the

date of the application before the Tribunal till the date of

realisation. Both the opposite parties are jointly and

severely responsible to pay the decretal amount. [278G-H,

279A]

Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1985) ACJ

645 and Jagbir Singh and Others v. General Manager, Punjab

Roadways and Others, (1987) ACJ 15, relied on.

275

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2559 of

1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.1988 of the

Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 309 of 1980.

Praveen Kumar for the Appellants.

Yogeshwar Prasad and Sushil Kumar Jain for the

Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.

Major Dalip Singh, alongwith his wife Hardeo Kaur and

his two sons Jasminder Singh (10 years) and Balvinder Singh

(7 years), was travelling in his Ambassodor car from Mathura

to Delhi on July 30, 1977. A Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation's bus driven by Ramesh Chandra Sharma struck

against the Ambassador car driven by Major Dalip Singh.

Major Dalip Singh, his wife and sons were injured in the

accident. Unfortunately Major Dalip Singh succumbed to the

injuries. Master Jasvinder Singh received multiple injuries

including fracture of nasal bone. His yonger brother

Balvinder Singh received injury on the forehead and multiple

abrasions on various parts of body. Hardeo kaur, however,

received minor injuries. A claim petition was filed by

Hardeo Kaur, her two minor sons and daughter Davendra Kaur

(6 years) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Mathura. The Tribunal by its judgment dated January 29,

1980 found on the basis of the evidence adduced before it

that the accident took place due to rash and negligent

driving of the bus by the driver Ramesh Chandra Sharma.

Regarding quantum and assessment of compensation the

Tribunal held as under :

"In the present case the evidence shows that Major

Dalip Singh was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.

2200. He died leaving a wife and three minor

children. Normally it is to be presumed that the

deceased was spending 1/3rd of his salary on

personal expenses. In the present case the deceased

was an Army Officer. Experience shows that the

personal expenses of Army Officers are more than

the other Civil servant specially because they have

to spend amount on mess expenses and on drinks etc.

Evidence also shows that Major Dalip Singh."

276

occasionally used to take drinks, though

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

moderately. In view of all these facts I am of the

opinion that it must be held that Major Dalip Singh

was spending half of his salary on personal

expenditure while the remaining half was spent on

his family. He was aged 36 at the time when this

occurrence took place. The normal span of life is

taken as 60 years, but in my opinion in the case of

army officers this span should be taken as 56

years. Army officers are also retired about 4

years earlier than civil government servants. Thus

the normal expectancy of life of Major Dalip Singh

was (56-36) 20 years. Thus the annual amount which

Major Dalip Singh was spending for his family comes

to Rs. 1100x12 = 13,200.00 which multiplied by 20,

which was the average expectancy of life in his

case, amounts to Rs.2,64,000. Out of this,

deduction of 1/3rd should be made on account of

lumpsum payment. The balance amounts to Rs.

1,76000 which should be the amount of damages to be

allowed to the heirs of deceased Major Dalip

Singh."

So far as Jasminder Singh and Balvinder Singh are

concerned the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000

respectively. the Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.

1,80,000 as damages on account of the death of Major Dalip

Singh and injuries received by his minor sons. The Tribunal

further awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum

from the date of application before the Tribunal till the

date of realisation. Hardeo kaur and her children filed

appeal before the High Court for enhancement of

compensation but the same was dismissed on March 2, 1988.

Hence this appeal by the widow and her minor children.

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that

the courts below have grossly erred in reaching a finding

that the late Major Dalip Singh being an army officer used

to spend one half of his salary on personal expenditure.

According to him the finding is based on mere surmises and

conjectures. He has stated that it was specifically pleaded

before the Tribunal that Major Dalip Singh used to spend

nearly 1400 per month on his family which was solely

dependent upon him. The learned counsel has also argued

that there was no basis to take the life span of an army

officer to be 56 years. According to him the life span

should be taken to be 70 years in the modern environments.

The learned counsel has contended that the deduction of

1/3rd assessed compensation on account of lumpsum

277

payment is wholly unjustified. He further contended that

the compensation awarded to the minor children is on the

lower side and no compensation was awarded for loss of

consortium to wife and the minor children.

We see considerable force in the arguments of the

learned counsel for the appellants. There was no basis or

justification before the Tribunal to have reached the

finding that Major Dalip singh was spending have the salary

on himself. On the other hand it was specifically claimed

by the appellant that he was spending nearly 1400 per month

to support his family. It is common knowledge that personal

needs of army officers including drinks are supplied to them

at a subsidised price through the Army canteens. We

therefore, set aside the finding of the courts below and

hold that late Major Dalip Singh spending Rs. 1400 per

month on his family.

This Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, (1987) ACJ

172 has observed that the span of life should be taken to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

70 years in view of the high rise in life expectancy. It is

specially so in the case of Army officers who are

disciplined to live an active and energetic life. The

courts below were not justified in taking the normal span of

life to be 60 years and that of an Army officer 56 years.

We are of the view that deduction of 1/3rd out of the

assessed compensation on account of lump-sum payment is not

justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the

litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years

thereafter. This court in Motor Owners Insurance Company

Ltd v. J.K. Modi, (1981) ACJ 507 held that the delay in the

final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in

all other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the

laws of compensation and added to that the monstrous

inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee

makes the compensation demanded years ago, less than quarter

of its value when it is received after such a long time. In

Manju Shri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, (1977) ACJ 134 this Court

awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy

without making any deductions. With the value of rupee

dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is not

justification for making deduction due to lump-sum payment.

We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified

in making lump-sum deduction in this case.

This Court in India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nirmla Devi,

(1980) ACJ

278

55 held as under :

"The determination of the quantum must be liberal,

not niggardly since the law values life and limb in

free country in generous scales."

The Tribunal became oblivious of the fact that there is

time-bound consideration for promotion in the Army. Apart

from that there have been upward revisions in the pay-scales

of Army personnel. No compensation was awarded for the loss

of consortium to the wife and children. Even the life

expectancy was taken to be as low as 56. Considering all

these circumstances we are of the view that a multiplier of

24 would meet the ends of justice.

Thus the annual amount which Major Dalip Singh was

spending for his family comes to Rs. 16,800 (Rs. 1400x12)

which multiplied by 24 comes to Rs. 4,03,200. We,therefore,

assess the amount of damages to be allowed to the appellant-

claimants at Rs. 4,03,200.

We agree with the tribunal that the injuries on the

person of Hardeo kaur were not such as to entitle her to

claim compensation. The compensation awarded to the young

boys, according to us, is on the lower side. We assess Rs.

10,000 in the case of Jasminder Singh and Rs. 5000 in the

case of Balwinder Singh.

The tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the

date of filing of the application before the tribunal till

the date of realistion. In Chameliwati v. Delhi Municipal

Corporation, (1985) ACJ 645 this Court awarded interest @

12% p.a. from the date of the application similarly in

Jagbir Singh and Others v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways

and Others, (1987) ACJ 15, this Court enhanced the interest

from 6% p.a. to 12% p.a. We, therefore, hold that apart

from the damages the appellants are entitled to claim

interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6% awarded by the tribunal.

In view of above discussion the claimants are entitled

to a total sum of Rs. 4,18,200 as damages on account of the

death of Major Dalip Singh and injuries received by

Jasminder Singh and Balwinder Singh. The appellants are

also entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. from September 3,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

1977, the date of the application before the tribunal till

the date of

279

realisation. Both the opposite parties are jointly and

severely responsible to pay the decretal amount.

The judgments of the tribunal and of the High Court are

modified and the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated

above with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000.

N.P.V Appeal allowed.