Mahadev vs Shivappa & Anr on 17 April, 2009

                                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2824 OF 2009
                            [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2487/2007]


MAHADEV                                                          ...    APPELLANT(S)
                                          :VERSUS:

SHIVAPPA AND ANR.                                                ...   RESPONDENT(S)




                                          ORDER

Leave granted.

The only issue which has been raised by the appellant- claimant before us is

with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded towards future loss of income.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal observed that the appellant was

between 30 to 35 years of age and as such the proper multiplier applicable would be

17 and taking his monthly income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum and applying the

multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- towards future loss of income due to

permanent disability.

The High Court in its judgment dated 28.7.2006 has, however, reduced the

amount aforesaid, observing that though the annual income had been correctly

capitalized at Rs.30,000/-, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied after

deducting 1/3rd in view of the disability of 100%, the

-2-

amount would work out to Rs. 3 lakhs. The High Court accordingly substituted the
amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as against Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. This order of

the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.

We are of the opinion that the observations of the High Court are not

correct. We find that in the case of injury, as in the present case, a deduction of 1/3 rd

amount towards loss of income, which is usually given in cases of death, cannot be

applied. It has also been fairly submitted before us by the learned counsel for the

respondents that as the appellant – claimant was 30-35 years of age, the proper

multiplier would be 17. If that be so, we find the order of the Tribunal to be correct.

We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the

High Court and direct that the amount of compensation shall be payable to the

claimant in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall, however, be no

order as to costs.

……………………..J
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………..J
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

NEW DELHI,
APRIL 17, 2009.