- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chikkamma And Anr. (S) v. Parvathamma And Anr. (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arose from a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Srikanth, who died a bachelor. The claimants/appellants were his mother (appellant No. 1, Chikkamma, aged about 58 years) and his sister (appellant No. 2, H.S. Susheela), described as physically handicapped.
The Tribunal assessed the deceased's income at Rs. 7,000/- per month, applied a multiplier of 9 (based on the mother's age), computed compensation at Rs. 4.08 lakhs, and awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.
On appeal, the High Court enhanced the monthly income to Rs. 9,000/-, maintained the multiplier of 9, and awarded an additional Rs. 1.53 lakhs with interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the claim petition until payment, but excluded interest for a 205-day delay in filing the appeal.
The appellants approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition; leave was granted, and the appeal was heard and decided.
Legal Issues Presented
- What should be the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to the appellants in the motor accident claim, including the appropriate multiplier to be applied where the deceased was a bachelor?
- Whether any addition towards future prospects should be made for a self-employed deceased in the present case.
- Whether the High Court was justified in denying interest for the period of 205 days’ delay in filing the appeal (in relation to the enhanced amount).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellants urged that an amount on account of future prospects should also be awarded while determining entitlement for enhancement of compensation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified the sole issue requiring decision as the quantum of compensation. Although it noted that the broader question—whether, in the case of a bachelor, the multiplier should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased or the dependent—was pending before a larger Bench, it decided the multiplier issue on the facts of the present case.
Given that the deceased left behind an aged mother and a younger sister who was physically handicapped, the Court held that the age of the deceased should be taken into account for selecting the multiplier, and therefore applied a multiplier of 17 (instead of 9).
The Court found no apparent error in the High Court’s assessment of income at Rs. 9,000/- per month and also did not disturb the 50% loss of dependency applied by the forums below. Using the income figure, the loss of dependency, and the revised multiplier, it computed total compensation at Rs. 9.18 lakhs.
As the forums below had already held the claimants entitled to Rs. 5.61 lakhs, the Court directed payment of the balance Rs. 3.57 lakhs forthwith, carrying interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.
On future prospects, the Court declined to go into the claim because (i) the deceased was self-employed, (ii) the question of awarding future prospects for self-employed persons was pending before a larger Bench, and (iii) the Court had already made some enhancement of compensation. The claim for future prospects was therefore refused.
The Court also set aside the portion of the High Court’s order that denied interest for the 205 days’ delay in filing the appeal, directing that interest for the full period be paid to the claimants.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED IN PART / ENHANCEMENT GRANTED: The appeal was allowed to the extent that (i) the multiplier was revised to 17 based on the age of the deceased, (ii) total compensation was determined at Rs. 9.18 lakhs with the balance Rs. 3.57 lakhs payable forthwith with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment, and (iii) the denial of interest for the 205-day period was set aside and interest for the full period was directed to be paid.
The direct effect was an enhancement of compensation and restoration of interest for the full period to the claimants. The Court declined to award future prospects in this case and noted that certain related questions were pending before a larger Bench; the opinion does not state that it lays down any new binding rule beyond the directions issued on these facts.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The only issue that would require the decision of this Court is on the quantum of compensation that should be awarded to the appellants, who were the claimants in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation was sought on account of the death of one Srikanth, who died a bachelor leaving behind the appellant No. 1 (Chikkamma), his mother aged about 58 years and his sister, the appellant No. 2 (H.S Susheela), a physically handicapped girl.
4. The learned Tribunal by taking into account the age of the mother of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of 9. Holding that the deceased was earning an income of Rs. 7,000/- per month, the computation was worked out at Rs. 4.08 lakhs. To this, interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.
5. In appeal, the High Court enhanced the income of the deceased to Rs. 9,000/- per month and maintained the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal i.e 9. On the said basis, an additional amount of Rs. 1.53 lakhs was awarded along with interest on the said enhanced amount payable from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.
6. While the issue with regard to adoption of the age of the deceased or that of the dependent for picking up an approximate multiplier, in a case where the deceased was a bachelor is pending before a larger Bench of this Court, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, as the deceased had left his aged mother and a younger sister (physically handicapped), it is the age of the deceased which should be taken into account for adoption of the multiplier. On the said basis the multiplier which would require to be adopted is 17.
7. The income of the deceased calculated at Rs. 9,000/- per month does not disclose any apparent error nor does loss of dependency which has been worked out by the forums below at 50%. Taking into account the income of the deceased; loss of dependency and the multiplier now adopted, the total compensation awardable works out to Rs. 9.18 lakhs. Out of this amount the forums below has already found the claimants to be entitled to Rs. 5.61 lakhs. The balance of Rs. 3.57 lakhs (Rs. 9.18 lakhs minus 5.61 lakhs) will now be paid forthwith to the appellants-claimants which amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that some amount on account of future prospects should also be awarded while determining the entitlement of the appellants for the enhancement of compensation.
9. Taking into account the fact that the deceased was a self employed person and also as the question with regard to award of future prospects of a self employed person is presently pending before a larger Bench of this Court and as some enhancement of compensation has already been made by us, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the claim for future prospects ought not to be gone into by us. The said claim, therefore, is refused.
10. We have noticed that the High Court had directed that interest on the enhanced amount by the High Court shall not be paid for the period of 205 days delay that has occurred in filing of the appeal. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the aforesaid part of the High Court Order and direct that the interest for the full period be paid to the claimants.
11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5587/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/07/2014 in MFA No. 1428/2013 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore)
Chikkamma and Anr.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Parvathamma and Anr.….Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 28/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv.
Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv.
Mr. B.R Deepak, Adv.
For M/s. Nuli & Nuli
For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv.
Mr. Akhil Roy, Adv.
For Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
12. Leave granted.
13. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
14. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Alert