# NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. GOPALI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 6 S.C.R. 834
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-07-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal ·No. 5179 of 2012
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-gopali-ors-28239
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
s. 166 - Motor accident - Death of victim - Claim for
compensation - Computation of income of deceased -
Consideration of increase in income - Held: High Court was
justified in determining the amount of compensation by
o granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased - In
the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22
years and during that period his salary would have certainly
doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary
as bonus per year - Insurer's challenge to the impugned order
E is meritless.
Motor accident - Death of victim - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal expenses - Held: Single Judgf! ·
of the High Court did not commit any error by not following
F the rule of 1 !3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of
the deceased - In the instant case, the deceased had 8
dependents including four sons and one daughter - Where
the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more
having an income of Rs.3,0001- to Rs.5,0001-, it is virtually
G impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total
income upon himself.
H
Motor accident - Compensation - Multiplier - Deceased
aged about 36 years - Held: Tribunal and High Court were
834
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
835
ORS.
not right in applying the multiplier of 10 - They should have
A
adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining
the amount of compensation - This is a fit case in which the
Court should exercise power under Art. 142 of the Constitution
and .enhance the compensaUon determined by High Court,
by applying appropriate multiplier - With a view to do complete
B
justice to the claimants, the· amount of compensation is
redetermined by applying the multiplier of 15 and accordingly,
the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 10, 63, 0401
-, as detailed in the judgment - The claimants shall also get
interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per C
annum from the date of filing the claim petition - Interest -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.
COSTS:
D
Payment of compensation delayed - Compensation
awarded by Tribunal enhanced by single Judge of High Court,
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Held: Since the
insurer had· enjoyed the ex-parte interim order pa~sed by
Supreme Court for a period of five years, it is directed to pay
E
cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
··Appeal by insurer challenging the compensation
awarded by Tribunal, enhanced by single Judge of High Court
F
and confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Ex-parte
interim order - Court expressed its concern with regard to the
ex-parte interim order continuing to operate for years together
without the matter being listed for effective hearing - Interim
order - . Ex-parte interim order - . Practice and procedure .
G'
. Santosfi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and
others 2012(3) SCR 1178 ~ relied on
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sar/a
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (5) SCR 1098 =
(2009) 6 SCC 121; UP. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
2004 (2) SCR 369 = (2004) 2 SCC- 473 - referred to.
B
0
D
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 116
referred to
para 7
2009 (5 ) SCR 1098
referred to
para 14
(1996) 4 sec 362
referred to
para 15
2004 (2 ) SCR 369
referred to
para 15
2012(3) SCR 1178
relied on
para 16

## Text

A
B
c
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 834
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
GOPALI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal ·No. 5179 of 2012)
JULY 05, 2012
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
s. 166 - Motor accident - Death of victim - Claim for
compensation - Computation of income of deceased -
Consideration of increase in income - Held: High Court was
justified in determining the amount of compensation by
o granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased - In
the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22
years and during that period his salary would have certainly
doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary
as bonus per year - Insurer's challenge to the impugned order
E is meritless.
Motor accident - Death of victim - Compensation -
Deduction towards personal expenses - Held: Single Judgf! ·
of the High Court did not commit any error by not following
F the rule of 1 !3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of
the deceased - In the instant case, the deceased had 8
dependents including four sons and one daughter - Where
the family of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more
having an income of Rs.3,0001- to Rs.5,0001-, it is virtually
G impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of the total
income upon himself.
H
Motor accident - Compensation - Multiplier - Deceased
aged about 36 years - Held: Tribunal and High Court were
834
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
835
ORS.
not right in applying the multiplier of 10 - They should have
A
adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining
the amount of compensation - This is a fit case in which the
Court should exercise power under Art. 142 of the Constitution
and .enhance the compensaUon determined by High Court,
by applying appropriate multiplier - With a view to do complete
B
justice to the claimants, the· amount of compensation is
redetermined by applying the multiplier of 15 and accordingly,
the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 10, 63, 0401
-, as detailed in the judgment - The claimants shall also get
interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12% per C
annum from the date of filing the claim petition - Interest -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.
COSTS:
D
Payment of compensation delayed - Compensation
awarded by Tribunal enhanced by single Judge of High Court,
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Held: Since the
insurer had· enjoyed the ex-parte interim order pa~sed by
Supreme Court for a period of five years, it is directed to pay
E
cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
··Appeal by insurer challenging the compensation
awarded by Tribunal, enhanced by single Judge of High Court
F
and confirmed by Division Bench of High Court - Ex-parte
interim order - Court expressed its concern with regard to the
ex-parte interim order continuing to operate for years together
without the matter being listed for effective hearing - Interim
order - . Ex-parte interim order - . Practice and procedure .
G'
. Santosfi Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and
others 2012(3) SCR 1178 ~ relied on
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sar/a
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (5) SCR 1098 =
(2009) 6 SCC 121; UP. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
2004 (2) SCR 369 = (2004) 2 SCC- 473 - referred to.
B
0
D
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 116
referred to
para 7
2009 (5 ) SCR 1098
referred to
para 14
(1996) 4 sec 362
referred to
para 15
2004 (2 ) SCR 369
referred to
para 15
2012(3) SCR 1178
relied on
para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5179 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dat~ 22.03.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at JaQlur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
E Special Appeal No. 49 of 2005.
F
Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal for the Appellant.
The Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing
G constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary, aided by
a proficient bar and supported by the State. However, the
Courts and Tribunals, which the citizens are expected to
approach for redressal of their grievance and protection of their
fundamental, constitutional and legal rights, are beset with the
H problems of delays and costs. In a country where 36 per cent
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
837
ORS.
of the population live below the poverty line, these deficiencies
A
in the justice delivery system prevent a large segment of the
population from availing legal remedies. The disadvantaged
and poor are deprived of access to justice because of the costs
of litigation, both in terms of actual expenses and lost
opportunities, and the laudable goal of securing justice - social,
B
economic and political enshrined in the Preamble to the
Constitution of India remains an illusion for them. The
infrastructure of Courts and the processes which govern them
are simply inaccessible to the poor. The State, which has been
mandated by Article 39A of the Constitution to ensure that the
C
operation of the legal system promotes justice by providing free
legal aid and that opportunities for securing justice are not
denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities, has not been able to create an effective mechanism
D
for making justice accessible to the poor, downtrodden and
disadvantaged. In last two and a half decades the institution of
the legal services authorities has rendered yeoman's service
in the field of providing legal aid to the poor but a lot is required
to be done for ensuring justice to economically deprived section
of the society and those who suffer from other disabilities like
illiteracy and ignorance.
3. We have prefaced the disposal of this petition, filed
against order dated 22.~.2007 passed by the Division Bench
of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeal filed
by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was dismissed as not maintainable, by making the
aforementioned observ,ations because in last almost 20 years
E
F
the claimants - the aged parents, wife and five children of Nanag
G
Ram, who became a victim of road accident in 1992, must
have exhausted all their resources in prosecuting and contesting
the litigation till the stage of High Court and they must not have
been left with money sufficient for engaging an advocate in this
Court and also because in last almost five years, during which
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A the special leave petition remained pending in this Court, they
must have lost all hopes to get justice. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the
dependants of Nanag Ram under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and enhanced the
B compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') by an amount of Rs.4,85,000/-
and directed the appellant to pay the enhanced compensation
with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date
of filing the claim petition till 31.12.2000 and at the rate of 9
C per cent from 1.1.2001 till the payment thereof, but on account
of ex-parte interim order passed by this Court on 23.7.2007,
the claimants could get a paltry sum of Rs. 2 lakhs .and they
perhaps thought that it will not be worthwhile to spend money
for contesting the special leave petition filed by the appellant.
D This is perhaps the thinking of many thousands of poor litigants,
who succeed in the Courts below and the High Courts but
cannot afford the cost and expenses of contesting litigation in
the highest Court of the country and suffer silently in the name
E of the Almighty God by treating it as their destiny.
4. Nanag Ram died in a road accident which occurred on
9.3.1992 when his motorcycle was struck by a truck ownedby
respondent No.10-Ram Chandra Paliwal and driven by Raghu
Nath, whose name was deleted from the array ofparties vide
F order dated 2.4.2009. At the time of accident, Nanag Ram's
age was about 36 years and he was employed as a Machine
Operator in National Engineering Company Ltd., Jaipur for a
salary of Rs.4,000/- per month.
G
5. The dependants of Nanag Ram filed a petition under
H
·Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation to the tune
of Rs.24 lakhs by alleging that their bread winner had died due
to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Shri Raghu Nath.
While the owner of the truck and its driver did not file a reply to
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
839
ORS.
contest the claim petition, the appellant raised all possible
A
objections. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant it was
prayed that the claimants be directed to prove whether the
driver of the offending vehicle was in the employment of the
owner and had a va!id and effective driving licence. The
appellant also sought a direction to the owner for production
B
of the original insurance policy and, as is usually done in such
cases, it claimed that the accident was not caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the truck. An alternative plea taken by
the appellant was that if an award is passed, the contributory
negligence of both the drivers be determined.
C
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the
parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal also
accepted the claimants' assertion that the deceased was
D
employed as a Machine Operator in National Engineering
Company, Jaipur. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence
produced by the claimants on the issue of monthly income of
the deceased and held that it could be taken as Rs.3,000/- per
month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and
E
applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal concluded that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f.
5.9.1992.
F
7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took
cognizance of the fact that the employer was annually paying
bonus to the deceased at the rate of 20 per cent of his salary,
referred to the judgment of this Court in General Manager,
Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma
G
Thomas (1994) 2 sec 176 and held. that the claimants are
entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,45,300/-. The learned
Single Judge made additions of small amounts towards pains
and sufferings, loss of love and affection, consortium, security
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 6 S.C.R.
A and protection and directed the appellant to pay an additional
amount of Rs.4,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum.
8. The special appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed
B by the Division Bench of the High Court by relying upon Section
1 OOA of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. On 23.7.2007, this Court ordered notice on the special
leave petition and indirectly stayed the judgment of the learned
C Single Judge of the High Court. For the sake of reference that
order is extracted below:
"Issue notice.
Without prejudice to the claims involved, let the petitioner
D
deposit a sum of Rupees three lakhs with the concerned
MACT within four weeks from today. A sum of Rupees two
lakhs shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the clairnant
without furnishing security."
E
10. As is the fate of large number of other special leave
petitions, this petition was not listed before the Court for next
five years for effective hearing and the appellant continued to
enjoy the benefit of ex-parte interim order. For the first time, the
case was listed before the Registrar on 15.10.2008.i.e. after
F almost one year and three months of the issue of notice. The
Registrar noted that notice has not been served upon
respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 and an application has been
filed for deleting respondent No. 9 from the array of parties. On
2.4.2009, the application was allowed by the Chamber Judge.
G For next two years an~ five months, the file of the case did not
see the light of the day. On 14.9.2011, the case was listed
before the Registrar, who recorded the statement of the
appellant's counsel that he does not want to bring on· record
the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. On
H
•
Nl:.W INUIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
841 .
ORS.
12.10.2011, the matter was again listed before the Registrar,
A
who directed that the matter be placed before the Chamber
Judge. When the matter was listed before the Chamber Judge,
he noted that the legal representatives of respondent Nos. 1
and 3 are already on record. It should be a matter of concern
for those who are associated with this institution as to why an
B
ex-parte interim order passed by the Court should continue to
operate for years together without the matter being listed for
effective hearing. If the claimants had been members of
economically affluent sections of the society, they would have
engaged an eminent advocate and taken steps for hearing of C
the matter at an early date but, as noted earlier, they do not
have the financial capacity and resources to engage any
advocate for contesting the special leave petition.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
D
carefully perused the record.
12. In our view, the appellant's challenge to the impugned
order is meritless and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We
are also convinced that this is a fit case in which the Court
E
should exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and
enhance the compensation determined by the High Court by
applying appropriate multiplier.
13. We shall first consider whether the High Court was
justified in not applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased.
14. In Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
F
6 SCC 121, the two Judge Bench made an endeavor to
standardise the parameters for determination of the
G
compensation payable by the insurer and I or the owner of the
offending vehicle. While dealing with the issue of deduction
towards personal. expenses, the Court made the following
observations:
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A
"We have already noticed that the personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the
income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No
evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the
deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly
B
unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will.
obviously tend to .claim that the deceased was very frugal
and did not have any expensive habits and was spending
virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it
may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased
C
was a spendthrift, even if he was one.
It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition
to produce evidence to show that the deceased was
spending a considerable part of the income on himself or
o
that he was contributing only a small part of the income on
his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise
the deductions to be made under the head of personal and
living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice
of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the
E
deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was
married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased
was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of
experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third
deduction got statutory recognition under the Second
F
Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicle~ Act, 1988 ("the MV Act", for
short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an
inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline."
G
15. The Bench then referred to the judgments in Kera/a
H
State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P.SRTC v. Tri/ok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
(2004) 2 sec 473 and held:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
843
ORS.
"Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
A
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is
to apply standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the
view that where the deceased was married, the deduction
B
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent
family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members
C
exceeds six."
16. The issue was recently considered in Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal
No.3723 of 2012 decided on 23.3.2012) and it was observed:
D
"It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the
Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit
without assigning reasons that the deceased would have
spent 1/3rd bf his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards
E
personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of
the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court
were totally oblivious of the h<iird realities of the life. It will
be impossible for a person whose monthly income is
Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the
F
family consisting offive persons. Ordinarily, such a person
would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or
use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest
for his family."
17. National Sample Survey Report No. 527 on Household
Consumer Expenditure in India 2006-07, which has been
prepared after conducting thorough research on the subject
contains the figures of monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE)
G
for various classes. These are extracted below:
H
m
0
tD
)>
Table SR: Hreak-un of total monthl\' ocr cdr>ita consumer cx~nditurc ~MPCE) b,r group~~·f items for households in different l\1rCE classes
All-India
Rural
no. ofhhs
monlhly per capila expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)
reporting
item group
consumption
per
0235 -
270320365410455 -
5105806908901155 &
all
IOOO
sample
235
no
320
365
410
455
510
580
690
890
1155
morc
cla.'iSCS
hhs
hhs
(I)
(2
())
"'
(5)
(6
(7
(8
(9)
(10)
(Ill
(12)
(131
(14)
(IS
(16)
cereals
67.12
76.36
H8.88
95.46
96.64
!02.97
!07.42
114.03
120.46
125.43
129.52
144.23
114.RO
986
32847
gram
0.27
1.04
0.68
0.50
0.68
0.85
0.64
0.88
l.03
1.33
1.73
2.91
. I.JR
199
7489
cereal substituu.-s
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.12
0.20
0.21
0.41
0.45
0.83
1.94
0.46
71
2837
pulses and their products
5.14
8.11
11.62
IJ.34
14.45
16.95
18.96
20.54
22.68
27.02
31.42
40.IS
22.67
973
3238)
milk and milk products
2.K6
9.39
8.73
1207
19.43
27.33
31.27
39.97
52.41
75.89
96.72
151.72
56.23
766
263801
edible oil
7.85
11.47
15.38
16.82
18.93
21.SO
23.16
25.36
27.37
32.01
36.68
44.49
27.22
982
32649
egg, fish and rn.:al
3.38
6.31
7.44
10.39
13.29
JS.00
17.75
19.79
24.31
29.50
38.74
52.13
24.32
616
23272
vegetables
14.91
20.67
25.39
28.91
30.20
34.50
36.62
40.01
44.79
49.98
56.44
67.88
43.06
986
32826
fruits: fresh
I.II
1.46
2.01
2.82
3.70
4.18
5.19
6.17
8.99
11.75
lb.75
32.28
10.02
773
27530
fruits: dry
0.04
0.08
O.JO
0.81
0.74
1.04
J.14
1.56
1.87
2.69
4.30
8.82
2.45
298
10146
suga.-
3.21
5.06
6.16
7.07
8.IO
9.05
10.77
12.04
14.07
17.12
20.61
27.87
14.04
957
318801
salt
0.69
0.79
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.14
J.14
1.21
1.38
. 1.5 I
1.77
1.99
j.34
985
32772
spices
5.32
7.50
8.30
9.70
J0.77
J 1.63
12.54
13.90
15.28
17.18
20.19
24.27
14.96
985
32761
beverages, etc.
S.09
7.46
10.29
11.72
14.78
16.27
19.10
22.21
25.79
33.65
46.72
92.60
30.67
982
32800
total: food
117.01
155.76
186.IO
210.63
232.76
262-53
285.92
317.88
360.84
425.SO
502.44
693.32
363.42
999
33123
pan
0.23
0.41
0.96
1.44
1.87
1.65
J.74
1.99
2.92
3.26
4.67
4.43
2.64
305
10407
tobacco
1.91
3.84
4.80
S.97
5.68
6.05
7.40
8.71
9.02
9.89
11.05
15.17
8,70
618
19528
intoxicants
1.92
2.28
3.58
3.40
4.91
4.11
4.22
4.53
5.90
6.35
7.77
17.63
6.36
181
6278
fuel and light
31.32
36.04
35.25
39.35
43.42
47.66
51.54
58.75
65.74
75.82
90.22
123.85
66.07
995
33093
clothing
15.69
17.42
20.07
23.48
26.64
27.53
32.96
36.54
41.49
49.31
n.54
85.99
42.42
997
33076
footwear
2.26
2.08
2.14
2.71
3.50
3.62
4.36
5.07
5.98
7.97
.27
15.73
6.53
972
32368
,
CJ) c
lJ
;:u
m
s::
m
()
0 c
;:u
-I
;:u
m
lJ
0
;:u
-I
CJ)
en
CJ)
()
;:u
z_
m
~
Table SR (contd.): Break-up of total monthly pe~ capita co~sumcr expenditure (Ml'CE) by groups. of itc.nts f~r h.;u.Cholds in different MPCE
classes
All-India
I Rural
z
0
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on ikm group for housc.-holds in MPCE class (Rs.)
no. ofhhs reporting
)>
consumotion
item group
O·
23S.
2703203654104S5 -
SlO -
580690·
8901155&
all
J'C'
sample
23S
270
320
36S
410
455
SlO
580
690
890
llSS
more
classes
1000
hhs
.hhs
I)
f2J
(3)
(4
(S)
(6
17)
(8)
{9
(10)
{I I)
112
{13)
{14)
{15)
116)
education
1.91
2.14
2.98
S.32
6.07
7.19
8.70
11.03
15.74
24.54
33.70
9S.17
22.16
615
21722
medical-institutional
0.2S
0.S8
0.80
1.57.
4.07
4.14
3.67
4.4.:?
SAO
11.31
24.02
94.38
IS.SS
127
5076
medical-non-inst.
S.26
5.63
9.85
11.75
11.90
17.98
19.29
23.94
28.05
42.80
S7,93
125.53
36.74
685
23349
entertainment
0.64
0.69
0.50
0.81
1.71
1.34
2.40
2.34
:um
4.68
8.76
18.36
4.74
279
11404
goods for personal care
0.23
0.34
0.24
0.29
0.92
0.59
1.08
1.41
1.44
1.99
2.52
4.61
1.63
IS3
5460
toilet articles
5.42
6.32
7.60
9.41
10.25
11.42
12.79
14.49
16.79
20.18
24.61
43.52
17.87
994
32966
sundry articles
3.98
5.45
5.95
7.14
8.10
9.31
10.38
12.18
14.26
17.12
22.46
31.90
14.6S
993
32916
cons. services excluding
)>
(/)
(/)
c
:;o
)>
Oz
;o ()
(/) m
. ()
0
conveyance
4.31
5.46
7.29
8.20
9.96
11.85
14.33
16.21
21.56
JO.SI
48.92
109.15
29.09
968
31867
conveyance
2.60
4.07
3.26
4.S9
7.16
7.57
ID.II
12.04
15.42
26.39
44.51
114.97
25.77
754
27051
rent
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.34
0.23
0.37
0.77
0.65
0.94
2.48
4.31
19.31
3.00
63
2648
taxes and ccsscs
O.OS
0.09
0.22
0.47
0.38
0.58
0.84
0.90
1.16
l.85
2.74
6.46
1'6S
347
13380
r -I
0
durable goods total
2.45
6.20
4.S9
6.4S
6.26
7.44
8.54
11.57
IS.76
17.77
40.S7
138.13
26.18
844
27399
, total: non-food
80.44
99.0S
110.10
132.70
153.03
170.40
195.11
226.78
271.40
354.20
499.56 1064.28
331.75
1000
33145
total e1:penditare
197.45
254.81
296.20
343.33
385.79
432.93
481.03
544.66
632.23
779.69 1002.01
1757.60
695.16
1000
33146
clothing: second hand
029
1.12
0.36
0.29
0.39
0.40
o.so
0.26
0.21
0.33
0.27
0.19
0.33
69
2761
:-:::
G)
footwear: second hand
o.oi
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
8
409
2nd hand dbrable goods
0.05.
0.05
0.15
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
o.os
o.os
0.34
0.94
S.00
0.65
8
305
ostd. no. hhs(OO)
19254
27459
S7024
72159
107622
118332
146398
170830
242565
259952
186193
200894
1608681
0
~
cstd. no. pcrs(OO)
93943
159161
336277
402184
628S41
646317
769698
883179 1133508 1197816
7999S8 . 733037 7783617
r
no. of sample households
228
299
698
1137
15S9
1888
2413
3190
4580
6029
46S4
6471
33146
no. of sample persons
1167
1785
4262
6569
9053
10427
13327
16902
23846
29967
21960
25820
165085
Qo
'
00
~
(11
::c
m
0
OJ
)>
:::c
.,,
m
Cl
()
OJ
)>
Table SU: Breakwup of total monthly per capita consumer cxpendilure-(MPCE) by groups of items for households in different MPCE dasscs
All-India
Urban
no. ofhhs
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)
rcpoiting
consumn1ion
033539548558067579093011001380ISSO2540&
all
per
335
395
485
580
675
790
930
1100
1380
1880
2540
more
classes
1000
sample hhs
hhs
ti\
(2)
13l
141
15)
16
17
18
19
110
(I I
112
113
114'
115)
116
cereals
72.87
85.96
90.75
99.71
105.84
107.86
114.19
117.79
124.64
131.56
142.38
151.16
118.80
948
29024
gram
0.42
0.47
0.56
0.74
0.94
1.02
1.40
1.73
2.02
2.44
2.55
3.00
1.68
271
8232
cereal substirutcs
0.06
0.09
0.20
0.34
0.26
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.52
0.60
0.75
1.02
0.50
88
2256
pulses and their products
12.12
15.17
17.13
20.62
22.74 .
25.13
27.37
29.24
32.13
36.60
40.93
47.25
30.06
938
28697
milk and milk products
11.25
20.39
25.29
33.76
46.68
57.SO
69.83
89.31
!07.14
138.0I
161.88
235.62
97.49
893
27409
edible oil
14.12
18.39
20.81
23.42
27.76
30.42
33.38
36.21
42.06
46.33
52.12
59.81
37.52
941
28810
egg, fish and meat
6.93
I0.97
15.13
19.44
24.33
25.20
29.93
30.71
37.40
41.02
51.46
67.53
34.20
571
17945
vegetables
20.84
27.36
30.75
37.88
39.80
43.50
50.49
54.18
62.46
70.31
77.18
98.71
56.87
943
28884
fruits: fresh
2.63
3.59
4.62
7.01
8.63
10.16
13.03
15.39
21.44
29.66
40.18
71.11
21.97
887
27616
fruits: dry
0.44
0.87
1.31
1.35
1.73
2.54
2.78
3.62
4.81
7.18
13.28
23.46
6.03
419
13278
sugar
7.14
8.67
I0.65
11.01
13.41
14.71
16.05
17.94
19.17
20.20
22.76
25.53
17.25
933
28576
salt
0.88
0.96
1.10
1.21
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.68
1.82
1.88
2.03
2.35
1.66
942
28847
spices
7.70
10.20
12.02
13.98
14.97
16.37
17.37
19.08
20.40
21.50
23.75
28.40
18.82
941
28825
beverages, etc..
13.00
16.89
18.39
25.11
29.26
35.05
41.58
50.99
66.57
91.22
126.27
271.33
74.42
997
30485
total: food
170.42
219.98
248;70
295..59
337.73
371.37
419.42
468.Jl
542.58
638.49
757.Sl
1086~
517.25
999
30562
pan
0.72
1.30
1.88
2.66
2.21
2.62
2.78
3.02
3.82
3.66
4.41
4.
3.12
199
7097
tobacco
3.81
4.36
5.90
8.08
6.78
8.22
8.81
9.26
8.85·
10.00
9.92
17.03
. 9.22
356
J0914
intoxicants
I.SO
1.69
3.44
4.38
5.16
4.28
5.40
4.49
6.31
7.21
6.73
16.04
6.24
99
3164
fue1 and light
38.42
47.01
56.77
64.68
73.68
85.05
92.24
I07.32
123.75
143.54
171.36
255.81
117.44
993
30384
clothing
19.05
22.96
28.70
31.85
37.90
43.39
49.12
59.90
67.98
85.86
114.21
188.80
70.25
997
30498
footwear
2.59
3.12
4.21
4.67
5.95
7.22
8.53
10.36
12.49
16.94
23.06
38.19
13.07
985
30137
00
~
O>
en
c
"'U
:::0
m
s::
m
()
0 c
:::0
--i
:::0
m
"'U
0
:::0
--i
en
O>
en
()
:::0
Table SU (contd.): Break-up of total monthly per capita consumer cxpenditure.(MPCE) by groups of items for households in different Ml'CE
classes
·
·
z m
All India
Urban
no! ofhhs
~
monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) on item group for households in MPCE class (Rs.)
repclrting
item gr~up
consumption
z
0
.
'""
Sample
. 0.
335 -
395.
485.
580.
675 -
7909301100138018802540&
all
1000
hhs
hhs
335
395
485
580
675
790
930
1100
1380
1880
2540
more
classes
)>
)>
(J)
(I)
.
121
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
. (7
(8)
(9)
(10)
. (11)
(12)
(13)
(14
(15)
(16)
education
5.27
6.35
11.39
13.21
11.68
2658
38.02
48.73
68.4-1
110.25
182.02
424.68
91.60
721
22518
medical-institutional
2.34
1.10
2.43
6.17
3.9-1
8.64
10.39
12.16
lb.90
14.35
40.18
128.41
24.35
140
4199
medical-non-inst.
8 .. 69
12.90
18.23
24.15
25.34
34.30
44.93
46.19
55.71
73.29
95.96
167.96
58.23
718
21973
(J) c
;;u
)>
entertainment
O.T!
1.60
2.91
4.97
7.14
9.09
12.55
16.06
22.37
32.77
48.10
87.27
24.05
581
19683
goods for personal care
0.2.2
0.37
0.51
0.59
0.67
1.15
1.41
2.36
2.08
3.30
6.58
10.97
2.88
133
5258
toilet articles
8.77
I0.66
12.76
15.53
18.44
21.17
24.14
27.43
32.82
41.09
52.05
72.65
31.82
998
30516
sundry articles
6.18
8.35
9.75
12.27
14.40
16.87
19.41
21.50
26.65
33.32
43.24
63.92
26.09
992
30388
cons. services excluding
Oz
;;u ()
oo m
. ()
·conveyance
7.04
9.85
13.50
15.78
21.54
29.19
38.73
54.04
75.79
118.46
201.07
447.~
98.57
979
29926
0
conveyance
4.61
4.88
7.09
10.77
18.12
23.05
29.58
45.66
67.06
103.32
162.52
369.38
81.63
842
26258
rent
3.25
5.98.
7.08
12.33
14.33
24.18
32.43
46.06
59.31
91.58
125.05
264.55
66.96
365
10449
r
taxes arid cesscs
0.65
1.56
1.96
2.31·
3.41
5.00
5.68
7.42
8.76
11.72
18.93
42.49
10.52
521
16087
-I
durable goodS total
2.59
3.85
5.71
7.37
9.53
12.40
15.83
20.77
28.46
51.14
96.82
382.12
59.21
818
24981
0
tobd: non-food
116.48
147.88
194.23
241.77
290.24
362.40
43997
542.72
687.SS
961.82 1402.21
2982.06
795.25
1000
30583
total e&P._c:nditvre
286.90
367.85
442.94
537.36
627.96
733.77
859AO
1011.04 1230.14 1600.31
2159.72 4068.34 1312.50
1000
30583
c!Olhing:"scconcl hand
0.82
0.53
0.39
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.30
0.22
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.09
0.25
38
1587
:<::
f__,,,: second hand
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
O.oJ
0.02
9
276
2°' hand durable good<
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.08
0.20
0.32
0.23
0.21
0.50
1.08
0.87
6.14
0.92
II
304
i~rcnt
50.98
60.83
73.44
91.30
107.16
123.44
143.57
170.39
211.24
284.56
472.82
826.60
245.22
653
20248
cstd. no. hhs(OO)
6764
9524
23316
37046
38559
46300
58647
62420
78203
82775
58892
75987
578434
cstd. no. pcrs(OO)
36334
59014
138395
195388
207808
228906
275815
215004
324424
312892 .209981
219963 2483925
G)
0
~
c
no. of sample. households
265
335
837
1259
1423
1795
2269
2561
3939
5885
4739
5276
30583
no. of sample persons
1539.
2101
4983
6902
7623
9220
11009
11810
17022
23096
16372
15151
126828
!<"'
(X)
m
0
()
)>
"'
.....
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A
18. Here, we are dealing with a case in which the
deceased had 8 dependents including four sons and one
daughter. The question which arises for our consideration is
whether in 1992 a person having an income of less than
Rs.3,000/- and a family of 9 could think of spending 1/3rd of
B
his income on himself. On a conservative estimate, it is possible
to say, he would have spent at least 50% of the income on the
purchase of foodgrains, milk, etc., and for payment of water,
electricity and other bills. 25% of the income would have been
spent on the education of children which would have included
c school/college fee, cost of books, etc. 15% of the income would
have been used for meeting other family necessities, like,
clothes, medical expenses, etc. He would have then been left
with 10% of his income, a portion of which could be used to
meet unforeseen contingencies and on the occasion of
0
festivals. In this scenario, any deduction towards personal
expenses would be unrealistic. In any case, where the family
of the deceased comprised of 5 persons or more having an
income of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, it is virtually impossible for
him to spend more than 1/10th of the total income upon himself.
E
19. What we have observed hereinabove may not apply
to rich people living in urban areas who can afford to spend a
substantial amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drinks
parties. In those cases, there may be a semblance of
justification in applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction but it would
F
be wholly unrealistic to universally apply that rule in all cases.
20. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the
learned Single Judge of the High Court did not commit any
error by not following the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards the
G personal expenses of the deceased.
21. We are also of the view that the High Court was justified
in determining the amount of compensation by granting 100%
increase in the income of the deceased. In the normal course,
the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that
H period his salary would have certainly doubled because the
NEW !NOIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOPALI &
849
ORS.
employer was paying 20% of his salary as bonus per year.
A
22. The issue which remains to be considered is whether
the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error by applying
the multiplier of 10.
23 .. In Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra),
this Court considered the question relating to selection of
multiplier, referred to the judgments in Kera/a State Road
Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra),
U.P.SRTC v. Tri/ok Chandra (supra) and the Second Schedule
appended to the Act and held :
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be
as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared
8
c
by applying Susa·mma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for 0
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced
by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years,
M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for
E
51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
24. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the age
of the deceased was 36 years. Therefore, the Tribunal and the
High Court were not right in applying the multiplier of 10. They
F
should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
25. In the result, the appeal i~missed. However, with a
view to do complete justice to the claimants, we suo motu reG
determine the amount of compensation in the following terms
by applying the multiplier of 15 and hold that the claimants are
entitled to a total amount of Rs.10,63,040/-:
Amount of compensation with 12 months
salary and 15 as multiplier
: Rs. 5378 x 12 x 15 = H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 6 S.C.R.
A
Rs.9,68,040
[Rs.2,689 pm x 2= Rs. 5,378/- pm]
Compensation to Family members
for loss of love & affection, deprivation
of protection, social security, etc.
Rs.70,000/-
B
Compensation to the widow of the
deceased for loss of love & affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of consortium,
deprivation of protection, social security, etc.
: Rs.25,000/
c
Total Compensation
Rs.10,63,040
{Rs.9,68,040 + Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 25,000)
26. The claimants shall also get interest on the enhanced
compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
D filing the claim petition.
27. The appellant is directed to pay the enhanced I
additional compensation and interest to the claimants within a
period of six weeks by getting a demand draft prepared in the
E name of respondent No.2, that is, the widow of the deceased.
The latter shall invest 50% of the amount in a fixed deposit of
three years term in a nationalized bank.
28. Since the appellant had enjoyed the ex-parte interim
order passed by this Court for a period of five years, it is
F
directed to pay cost of Rs.5 lakhs to the claimants.
29. The appellant shall submit compliance report in the
Registry of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The
Registry shall list the matter before an appropriate Bench for
G perusal of the report. If the Bench finds that the appellant has
failed to comply with the directions contained in this order, it
shall initiate proceedings against the officers of the appellant
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also order recovery
of the amount as arrears of land revenue.
H R.P.
Appeal dismissed.