# MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL v. SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC. April !5, 1977

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 627
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2254 & 2255 of 1968
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna !Yer, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madhya-pradesh-state-road-transport-corporation-bairagarh-bhopal-v-sudhakar-ors-7218
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

627
Reasonable prophecy, principle of-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 1 lOB
-Award of conzpensation-Death of, a child and also of earning wife in _an
accident-Claimant husband not dependant on wife's income and remarrying
within 11 months-Assessment of damages should be based 011 the principles
of rec.jonable prophecy Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Section IA.
Bus accident-Victinz boy aged about four years coming fro1n a well-to-do
fa1nily-Disabled by a compound fracture of right tibia and fabula lower third
near ankle joint-Award of compensation of Rs. 20,000 as enhanced by the
lligh Court by way of damages is proper-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section
llOR.
In a bus accident on June 23, 1961, one Mrs. Usha Kotasthane and her one
year old son died.
One Sailesh Kumar, a boy of about four years coming
from a well-to-do family was disabled due to a compound fracture of his right
tibia and fabula lower third near the ankle joint.
Sudhakar Kotasthane, the
huiband of the deceased and respondent No. I in C.A. 2254 of 1968 and Smt.
Indu Bala. Bhandari, mother of Sailesh Kumar and respondent No. 1 in C.A.
2255 of 1968 applied to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior for
compensation.
The Tribunal took into consideration (i) the loss of life of
Sudhakar's wife which resulted into conditions of inconvenience, suffering,
shock, derangement in house and the life for a period of nearly 11 months
i.e., till he remarried and (ii) The fact that Mrs. Usha WREi working as Physical
Instructress in a school getting a salary of
Rs. 190/- p.m. in the scale of
Rs. 150-10-250 and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation as
against the cla·im of Rs. 75,0001- computed on the deceased's earnings. The
Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.
10,000/~ as damages and Rs. 890/- as
special damages to Smt. Indubala. Both the respondents and the a_.ppellant preferred appeals to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal. ·The High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- in the case of Sudhakar and
to Rs. 20.000/- in the case of Indubala.
Allowing the appeal in C.A. No. 2254 of 1968 and dismissing t.he appeal
in C.A. No. 2255 of 1968, the Court.
HELD : (I) A method of assessing damages usually followed in England
is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and "to arrive at a
total aw~ .. rd by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual
'dependency' by a number of year's purchase", that is. the number of years
that benefit was expected to last taking into consideration the imponderable
factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand.
The hu~band may
not be dependant on the wife's income, the ba.sis of assessing the dam~ges
payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. [631 AB]
Rule in Mallet v. Mc Monga/e 1970 (A.C.) H. L. 166 at 174 quoted with
approval.
P. B. Kadar v. Thatchamma AIR 1970 Kerala 241, a·pproved.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
In assessing damages certain other factors have to be taken note of such
a~. the uncertainties of life and the fact of accelerated
payment-th~t the
H
husband would be getting a lump sum payment "'hich but for his wife's death
would have been available to him in driblets over a number of years. Allow·
ance must be made for the uncertainties and the total figure sCaled down accordingly. The deceased might not have been able to earn t!ll the age of retirement
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
for some reason or other, like illness or for having to spend more tin1e to look
after the family which was expected to grow.
Thus, the amount assessed has
to be reduced taking into account these imponderable factors.
[630 G-H]
In the instant case, the deceased had 35 years of service before her when
she died.
The claimant's loss reasonably works out to ·Rs. 50/- a month i.e.,
Rs. 600/- a year.
Keeping in mind all the relevant factors and conungenc1es
and taking 20 as the suitable n1ultiplier, the figure comes to Rs. 12,000. The
Tribunal's award canno

## Text

MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL
v.
SUDHAKAR & ORS. ETC.
April !5, 1977
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
627
Reasonable prophecy, principle of-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 1 lOB
-Award of conzpensation-Death of, a child and also of earning wife in _an
accident-Claimant husband not dependant on wife's income and remarrying
within 11 months-Assessment of damages should be based 011 the principles
of rec.jonable prophecy Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Section IA.
Bus accident-Victinz boy aged about four years coming fro1n a well-to-do
fa1nily-Disabled by a compound fracture of right tibia and fabula lower third
near ankle joint-Award of compensation of Rs. 20,000 as enhanced by the
lligh Court by way of damages is proper-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section
llOR.
In a bus accident on June 23, 1961, one Mrs. Usha Kotasthane and her one
year old son died.
One Sailesh Kumar, a boy of about four years coming
from a well-to-do family was disabled due to a compound fracture of his right
tibia and fabula lower third near the ankle joint.
Sudhakar Kotasthane, the
huiband of the deceased and respondent No. I in C.A. 2254 of 1968 and Smt.
Indu Bala. Bhandari, mother of Sailesh Kumar and respondent No. 1 in C.A.
2255 of 1968 applied to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior for
compensation.
The Tribunal took into consideration (i) the loss of life of
Sudhakar's wife which resulted into conditions of inconvenience, suffering,
shock, derangement in house and the life for a period of nearly 11 months
i.e., till he remarried and (ii) The fact that Mrs. Usha WREi working as Physical
Instructress in a school getting a salary of
Rs. 190/- p.m. in the scale of
Rs. 150-10-250 and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation as
against the cla·im of Rs. 75,0001- computed on the deceased's earnings. The
Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.
10,000/~ as damages and Rs. 890/- as
special damages to Smt. Indubala. Both the respondents and the a_.ppellant preferred appeals to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal. ·The High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- in the case of Sudhakar and
to Rs. 20.000/- in the case of Indubala.
Allowing the appeal in C.A. No. 2254 of 1968 and dismissing t.he appeal
in C.A. No. 2255 of 1968, the Court.
HELD : (I) A method of assessing damages usually followed in England
is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and "to arrive at a
total aw~ .. rd by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual
'dependency' by a number of year's purchase", that is. the number of years
that benefit was expected to last taking into consideration the imponderable
factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand.
The hu~band may
not be dependant on the wife's income, the ba.sis of assessing the dam~ges
payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. [631 AB]
Rule in Mallet v. Mc Monga/e 1970 (A.C.) H. L. 166 at 174 quoted with
approval.
P. B. Kadar v. Thatchamma AIR 1970 Kerala 241, a·pproved.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
In assessing damages certain other factors have to be taken note of such
a~. the uncertainties of life and the fact of accelerated
payment-th~t the
H
husband would be getting a lump sum payment "'hich but for his wife's death
would have been available to him in driblets over a number of years. Allow·
ance must be made for the uncertainties and the total figure sCaled down accordingly. The deceased might not have been able to earn t!ll the age of retirement
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
for some reason or other, like illness or for having to spend more tin1e to look
after the family which was expected to grow.
Thus, the amount assessed has
to be reduced taking into account these imponderable factors.
[630 G-H]
In the instant case, the deceased had 35 years of service before her when
she died.
The claimant's loss reasonably works out to ·Rs. 50/- a month i.e.,
Rs. 600/- a year.
Keeping in mind all the relevant factors and conungenc1es
and taking 20 as the suitable n1ultiplier, the figure comes to Rs. 12,000. The
Tribunal's award cannot, therefore, be challenged as too -low though it was
not based on proper grounds. The High Court was alSo not right in estimating
the damages at Rs. 50,000/- in the manner it did.
[631 BC]
C.A. 2255 of 1968 :
Though the possibility \\'a~ there, in the instant case, of the defornuty being
removed by surgical operation v.·hen the boy grew up to be 16 years, the other
possibility of "likelihood to develop a permanent ]imp" cannot be altogether
ruled out.
That being the position, the increase
of
general
damages
to
Rs. 20,00Q/ ., in the instant case, in addition to Rs. 890 /· as special damages is
proper.
[631 D·Fl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2254 & 2255
of 1968.
(From the Judgment and Order dated the 10-1-1967 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. First Appeal No. 12/64)
Ram Panjwani. Rameshwar Nath, for the appel!ant in both the
appeals .
. A. G. Rat11aparkhi, for respondent No. 1 in CA 2254/68.
S. K. Gambhir, for respondent No. 1 in CA No. 2255/68.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J. On June· 23, 1961 a bus owned by the appellant which
was going from Gwalior to Indore met with an accident as a result of
which two of the passengers, Mrs. Usha Kotasthane, aged about 23
years, and her one year old son, died and several others received serious injuries.
Among the injured was one Sailesh Kumar, a boy ot
about four years.
Claims for compensation were filed
before
the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gwalior.
The application for compensation for the death of Mrs. Usha Kotasthane and her child was
made by her husband Shri Sudhakar Kotasthane, and the claim in respect of the injury to minor Sailesh Kumar was made on his behalf by
his guardian mother Shrimati Indubala Bhandari.
Sudhakar Kotasthane and Indubala Bhandari were also travelling in the same bus and
both sustained injuries and were awarded compensation by the tribunal,
but these appeals do not concern their cases or the claim in respect ot
Kotasthane's dead child.
The two appeals before us at the instance
of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, are against the
common judgment of the High Court enhancing the quantum of damages awarded by the claims tribunal in respect of the death of Mrs.
Usha Kotasthane and the injury sustained by Sai!esh Kumar. C.A.
2254 of 1968 relates to the award in Mrs. Kot•asthane's case and C.A.
2255 of 1968 to that in the case of Sailesh Kumar.
.I
M.P. TRANSPORT CORP. v. SUDHAKAR (Gupta, J.)
629
As regards the death of Mrs. Usha Kotasthane, the claims tribunal
awarded Rs. 15000/- as damages to her husband Sudhakar.
At the
time of her death she was employed as a Physical Instructress in a
school at Indore, getting a salary of Rs. 190/- per month, in the grade
of Rs. 150-10-250. Admittedly Sudhakar remarried within a year
of the death of his first wife.
This is how the tribunal dealt with the
claim :
"In the present case, it is a case of the death of the wife.
A
B.
The husband was not dependent on the earning of his wife.
He was himself earning independently.
The applicant has
no where stated that on account of the death of his former
wife, he has been deprived of her income, nor. that he was
dependant upon her. It is true, that the wife of the applicant
C
was educated, healthy, employed, and earning.
As far as,
the Joos of companionship is concerned, it is again true that
he faced this loss for nearly, 11
months, after which, he
married for the second
time.
No
cross-examilfaiion has
been led by tlie non-applicant on the point that the second
wife is as accomplished, educated, and healthy as the former
one was.
The death of the wife of the applicant. must have
D
caused him mental shock, pain and inconvenient in his house
hold.
The work in the house. which he could take from bis
wife in looking to the household was also not available to the
applicant during this period of 11 month.
The advantage
of established married life with a child in the lap, was also
lossed to the applicant during this time.
Taking into consideration all these facts, in favour of the applicant, and the
E
fact, against him that he was married again after 11 months,
of the death of his wife, I think, it will be proper to award
damages amounting to Rs. 15000/-, for the loss of life of
his wife, which resulted into conditions of inconvenience,
suffering shock derangement in house and the life, for a period
of nearly 11 months."
F
Both :>udhakar Kotasthane and Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation preferred appeals to the High Court from the decision
of the tribunal. The High Court proceeded as follows.
The "span
of her earning life" was counted as 35 years taking 58 years as the age
of superannuation. For the first six years from the date of accident,
the High Court took Rs. 200 /- as the average monthly income, and for
G
the remaining twenty-nine years of service the average income per
month was fixed at Rs. 250/-. On this basis the High Court computed
her total earning to be Rs. 96,000/-.
Giving allowance for her own
expenses an~ also taking into account the promotions
and consequently the mcreased salary she might have earned, the High Court
thought that she could have "easily spread" half of this amount for the
household and estimated the loss of income on account of her death
H
in round figures, at Rs. 50,000/-. The High Court enhanced the compensation accordingly.
Regarding
Sudhakar's second
marriage the
High Court observed :
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
"But even so, the second marriage cannot be said to be a
substitute for the first one.
The second wife is not an earning member of the family nor is it shown that Sudhakar has
in any way benefitted from the second marriage financially.
Therefore the financial loss would be there despite the second
marriage.''
On these findings the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Sudhakar
Kotasthane and dismissed that preferred by the Madhya Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation.
The extract from the tribunal's order quoted above suggests that
in fixing the quantum of compensation the tribunal was under the impression that the applicant had made no claim on the ground of pecuniary loss resulting from his wife's death.
In this the tribunal was
clearly in error. In paragraph 11 of the claim petition, Rs. 75.000/-
is claimed as compensation and the paragraph makes it clear that the
sum is computed on the deceased's expected earnings. If there were
no such claim the tribunal would have been hardly justified in awarding Rs. 15000/- as damages for the mental shock and inconvenience
suffered by the applicant for a period of 11 months only, after which
he remarried.
The High Court also does not seem to be right in esti ..
mating the damages at Rs. 50,000 /- in the manner it did.
Whether the
deceased's average monthly salary is taken to be Rs. 200/- or Rs. 250/-
we find it difficult to agree that only half of that amount would have
been sufficient for her monthly expenses till she retired from service,
so that the remaining half may be taken as the measure of her husband's monthly loss.
It is not impossible that she would have contributed half of her salary to the household but then it is reasonable
to suppose that the husband who was employed at a slightly hicller
salary would have contributed his share to the common pool wbich
would have been utilised for the lodging and board of both of them.
We do not therefore think it is correct to assume that the husband's
loss amounted to half the monthly salary the deceased was likely to
draw until she retired. If on an average she contributed Rs. 100/-
every month to the common pool, then his loss would be roughly not
more than Rs. 50/- a month and, assuming she worked till she was
58 years, the total loss would not exceed Rs. 19.000/-.
But in assessing damages certain other factors have to be taken note of which the
High Court overlooked, such as the uncertainties of life and the fact of
accelerated payment-that the husband would be getting a lump sum
payment which but for his wife's death would have been available to
him in driblets over a number of years.
Allowance must be made tor
the uncertainties and the total figure scaled down accordingly. Tile
deceased might not have been able to earn till the age of retirement
for some reason or other, like illness or for having to spend more time
to look after the family which was expected to grow. Thus the amount
assessed has to be reduced taking into account these imponderable
factors.
Some element of conjecture is inevitable in assessing damages;
Lord Pearce in Mallet v. Mc Monagle, 1970 (A.C.) (H.L.)
166
(17 4), calls it "reasonable prophecy". Taking note of all the relevant
factors, the sum, of Rs. 15000/- awarded by the tribunal appears to
be a reasonable figure which we do not find any reason to disturb.
M.P. TRANSPORT CORP. v. SUDHAKAR (Gupta, J.)
631
A method of assessing damages, usually followed in England, as
A
appears from Mallet v. Mc Monagle (supra), is to calculate the net
pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to "arrive at the total award
by multiplying the fignre assessed as the amount of the annual "dependency" by a nuinber of "year's purchase"", (p. 178) that is, the number
of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into consideration the
imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand.
The husband may not be dependant on the wife's income, the basis ot
B
assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of his wife
would be similar.
Here, the lady had 35 years of service before her
when she died.
We have found that the claimant's loss reasonably
works out to Rs. 50/- a month i.e. Rs. 600/- a year. Keeping in
mind all the relevant facts and contingencies and taking 20 as the smtable multiplier, the figure come to Rs. 12,000/-. The tribunal's award
cannot therefore be challenged as too low though it was not based on c
proper grounds.
In a decision of the Kerala High Court relied on by
the appellant (P. B. Kader v. Thatchamma : AIR 1970 Kerala 241 J,
to which one of us was a party, the same method of assessing compensation was adopted.
The other appeal (C.A. No. 2255 of 1968) relates to the injury
sustained by a boy aged about four years.
He suffered compound
D
fracture of his right tibia and fabula lower third hear the ankle joint
with infection of the wound.
Skin-grafting had to be done and the
boy had to remain in
hospital from June 25, to
August 4, 1961.
According to the doctor who examined him, the child was likely to
develop a permanent limp which might require another operation at
the age of 16 years or so.
In any case, in the opinion of the doctor
the deformity was certain to persist till the boy was 16 years when
E
'another operation might remove it.
The tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/-
as general damages and Rs. 890 /- as special damages.
The High
Court increased the general
damages to Rs. 20,000 /-. It appears
from the evidence that the boy comes from a well-to-do family. Though
the possibility was there of the deformity being removed by surgical
operation when he grew up to be 16 years, the other possibility cannot
be altogether ruled out.
That being the position, we are not inclined
F .
to interfere with the sum awarded by the High Court.
In. the result., appeal '."o. 2254 of 1968 is allowe~, the judgment of
the High Court 1s set aside and the award of the tribunal is restored;
appeal No. 2255 of 1968 is dismissed.
There will be no order as to
costs in either appeal.
S.R.
C.A. 2254 of 1968 allowed.
C.A. 2255 of 1968 dismissed.
G
H