Case: New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. Gopali

under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (the MV Act, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. 15. The Bench then referred to the judgments in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 , U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004) 2 SCC 473 and held: Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards 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 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 one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members 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: 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 of his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards 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 hard 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 family consisting of five 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) for various classes. These are extracted below: Table 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 period his salary would have certainly doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary as bonus per year. 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 Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), this Court considered the question relating to selection of multiplier, referred to the judgments in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (supra), U.P.SRTC v. Trilok 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 by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for 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 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 should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. In our view, the appellants 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 should exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and enhance the compensation determined by the High Court by applying appropriate multiplierhold 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 personal expenses of the deceased21. 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 period his salary would have certainly doubled because the employer was paying 20% of his salary as bonus per year22. The issue which remains to be considered is whether the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error by applying the multiplier of 1024. 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 should have adopted the multiplier of 15 for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation