{"id":214697,"date":"1996-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"modified":"2018-11-28T22:25:02","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T16:55:02","slug":"u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 362, \t JT 1996 (5)\t356<\/div>\n
Author: A A.M.<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi A.M. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nU.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTRILOK CHANDRA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 362\t  JT 1996 (5)\t356\n 1996 SCALE  (4)522\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t  THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 1996
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Hon’ble the Chief Justice
\n\t  Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.P. Singh
\n\t  Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.K.Mukherjee
\nRaju Ramachandran and Ms.S.Ramachandran, Advs. for the
\nappellants.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.A.Mishra, Adv. for K.K.Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent Nos.
\n1-4
\nM.H.Baig, Sr.Adv,(Mrs.P.S.Shroff) Adv. for S.A.Shroff and
\nMukul Mudgal, Advs. with him for the Respondent No.5
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nU.P. State Road Transport
\nCorporation and others
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
Trilok Chandra & Others
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nAHMADI,CJI
\n     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The short question which we are called upon to consider
\nin this\t appeal relates to the use of the correct multiplier
\nfor determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal
\nrepresentatives of a victim of a road accident. The question
\narises in the backdrop of the following facts.\n<\/p>\n
     Prem Chandra,  aged about\t26 years,  met with  a fatal
\naccident on  1st August,  1977. He  was knocked\t down by  an
\nomnibus bearing\t Registration No.UTW  1802 belonging  to the
\nU.P.   State   Road   Transport\t  Corporation.\t His   legal
\nrepresentatives preferred  a claim  for compensation. Taking
\nhis earning capacity at Rs.300\/- per month, it was estimated
\nthat he\t spent Rs.200\/-\t per month  on his  family  members.
\nFixing\tthe  life  expectancy  at  60  years,  the  Tribunal
\ndeducted 36  years and\theld that the family was deprived of
\nhis earning  for 24  years. The compensation was thus worked
\nout at\tRs.57,600\/- (200x12x24).  This amount  was raised to
\nRs.81,600\/- as it was realised that the tribunal had wrongly
\ntaken the  age of the deceased at 36 instead of 26 years and
\nhad,  therefore,   committed  an   error  in  employing\t the
\nmultiplier of  24 years\t purchase factor instead of 34 years
\npurchase factor.  Thus the compensation came to Rs.200x12x34
\n= 81,600\/-.  The question  then is  whether the Tribunal was
\nright in  employing the\t multiplier of\t24 or the High Court
\nwas right in employing the multiplier of 34?\n<\/p>\n
     India is  one of  the countries with the highest number
\nof road\t accidents. Motor accidents are every day affairs. A
\nlarge number of claims for compensation for injury caused by
\nroad accidents\tare pending in various Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal. In a fatal accident the dependents of the deceased
\nare entitled  to compensation  for the loss suffered by them
\non account  of the death. The most commonly practised method
\nof assessing  the loss suffered is to calculate the loss for
\na year\tand then  to capitalise\t the amount  by\t a  suitable
\nmultiplier. To that is added the loss suffered on account of
\nloss of\t expectation of life and the like. The Tribunals and
\nHigh Courts  have adopted divergent methods to determine the
\nsuitable multiplier.  Even this\t Court has not been uniform;
\nmaybe because  the principle on which this method came to be
\nevolved\t has  been  forgotten.\tIt  has,  therefore,  become
\nnecessary to  examine the  law\tand  to\t state\tthe  correct
\nprinciples to be adopted.\n<\/p>\n
     The  topic\t  of  compensation   for  causing  death  by
\nnegligent driving came up for serious discussion before this
\nCourt in  Gobald Motor\tServices Limited  & Anr.  vs. R.M.K.
\nVeluswami and  others AIR<\/a>  1962 SC  1. The Court referred to
\nthe House  of Lords  decision in  Davies vs.  Powell Duffryn
\nAssociated Collieries  Ltd.  1942  AC  601  and\t quoted\t the
\nfollowing passage from the judgment:\n<\/p>\n
     “The damages are to be based on the
\n     reasonable expectation of pecuniary
\n     benefit  or  benefit  reducible  to
\n     money  value.   In\t assessing   the
\n     damages all circumstances which may
\n     be\t   legitimately\t   pleaded    in
\n     diminution of  the damages\t must be
\n     considered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …..The actual  pecuniary loss  of
\n     each individual entitled to sue can
\n     only be  ascertained by  balancing,
\n     on the one hand, the loss to him of
\n     the future\t pecuniary benefit, and,
\n     on\t  the\t other\t any   pecuniary
\n     advantage\t which\t from\twhatever
\n     source comes  to him  by reason  of
\n     the death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Court\talso referred  to the  judgment by  Viscount
\nSimon  in  Nance  vs.  British\tColumbia  Electric  Railways
\nCo.Ltd. 1951  AC 601  in  which\t the  same  principles\twere
\nenunciated for\testimating the\tdamages, the  method adopted
\nhowever differed.  Various  factors  that  would  enter\t the
\ncalculation as\tper Viscount  Simon  were  set\tout  in\t the
\njudgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “………. at  first the\tdeceased
\n     man’s expectation of life has to be
\n     estimated having regard to his age,
\n     bodily health  and the  possibility
\n     of pre-mature  determination of his
\n     life by  later accidents; secondly,
\n     the amount\t required for the future
\n     provision\tof  his\t wife  shall  be
\n     estimated\thaving\t regard\t to  the
\n     amounts he\t used to  spend\t on  her
\n     during  his   lifetime,  and  other
\n     circumstances;\tthirdly,     the
\n     estimated annual  sum is multiplied
\n     by the number of years of the man’s
\n     estimated span  of\t life,\tand  the
\n     said amount  must be  discounted so
\n     as to  arrive at  the equivalent in
\n     the form  of a  lump sum payable on
\n     his   death;    fourthly,\t further
\n     deductions must  be  made\tfor  the
\n     benefit accruing  to the widow from
\n     the acceleration of her interest in
\n     his estate,  and, fifthly,\t further
\n     amounts have to be deducted for the
\n     possibility  of   the  wife   dying
\n     earlier if\t the husband  had  lived
\n     the  full\tspan  of  life;\t and  it
\n     should also  be taken  into account
\n     that these\t is the\t possibility  of
\n     the widow\t remarrying  much to the
\n     improvement   of\t her   financial
\n     position. It would be seen from the
\n     said mode\tof estimation  that many
\n     imponderables   enter    into   the
\n     calculation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The same  principles were recalled by this Court in the
\ncase of\t Municipal Corporation\tof Delhi  vs. Subhagwanti  &
\nOrs.,  AIR<\/a>  1966  SC  1750.  In\t this  case  the  claim\t for
\ncompensation arose  on account of loss of life caused by the
\ncollapse of  the Clock\tTower abutting\ta highway. The Court
\nreferred to both the aforementioned judgments, and extracted
\nthe following  passage from  the judgment  in, the  case  of
\nDavies:\n<\/p>\n
     “The starting  point is  the amount
\n     of wages  which  the  deceased  was
\n     earning, the ascertainment of which
\n     to some  extent may depend upon the
\n     regularity of  his employment. Then
\n     there is  an estimate  of how  much
\n     was required  or expended\tfor  his
\n     own personal  and living  expenses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The balance  will give  a dictum or
\n     basic figure  which will  generally
\n     be turned into a lump sum by taking
\n     a\t certain    number   of\t  years’
\n     purchase. That sum, however, has to
\n     be taxed  down by having due regard
\n     to\t uncertainties,\t  for  instance,
\n     that the  widow  might  have  again
\n     married  and   thus  ceased  to  be
\n     dependent, and  other like\t matters
\n     of speculation and doubt.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case before  the Court  the  deceased  was\t Ram
\nPrakash aged  30 years.\t The High  Court found\tit proper to
\nestimate the  amount that  the deceased\t would have spent on
\nhis wife  and children\tin a year and Capitalised that for a
\nperiod of  15 years  and observed  that\t the  Trial  Court’s
\ncalculation was not excessive.\n<\/p>\n
     The compensation to be awarded has two elements. One is
\nthe pecuniary  loss to\tthe estate of the deceased resulting
\nfrom the accident, the other is the pecuniary loss sustained
\nby the\tmembers of  his family\tfor  his  death.  The  Court
\nreferred to these two elements in the Gobald Motor Service’s
\ncase. These  two elements were to be awarded under Section 1
\nand Section  2 of  the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 under which
\nthe claim  in that  case  arose.  The  Court  in  that\tcase
\ncautioned that\twhile making the calculations no part of the
\nclaim under  the first\tor  the\t second\t element  should  be
\nincluded twice.\t The Court  gave a  very lucid illustration,
\nwhich can be quoted with profit:\n<\/p>\n
     “An illustration  may  clarify  the
\n     position. X  is the  income of  the
\n     estate of\tthe deceased,  Y is  the
\n     yearly expenditure\t incurred by him
\n     on his  dependents (we  will ignore
\n     the other\texpenditure incurred  by
\n     him). X-Y\ti.e. Z. is the amount he
\n     saves every  year. The  capitalized
\n     value of  the income  spent on  the
\n     dependents,  subject   to\trelevant
\n     deductions, is  the pecuniary  loss
\n     sustained by  the\tmembers\t of  his
\n     family  through   his  death.   The
\n     capitalized value\tof  his\t income,
\n     subject  to   relevant  deductions,
\n     would be  the loss\t caused\t to  the
\n     estate  by\t  his  death.\tIf   the
\n     claimants under  both the heads are
\n     the   same,   and\t if   they   get
\n     compensation for  the  entire  loss
\n     caused to\tthe estate,  they cannot
\n     claim  again   under  the\thead  of
\n     personal\tloss   the   capitalized
\n     income that  might have  been spent
\n     on them if the deceased were alive.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Conversely,     if\t    they     got
\n     compensation\tunder\t    S.1,
\n     representing the  amount  that  the
\n     deceased would  have spent on them,
\n     if\t alive,\t to  that  extent  there
\n     should be\tdeduction in their claim
\n     under S.2\tof the Act in respect of
\n     compensation for the loss caused to
\n     the estate.  To put  it differently
\n     if under  S.1 they\t got capitalized
\n     value of  Y, under\t S.2 they  could
\n     get only  the Capitalized\tvalue of
\n     Z, for  the capitalised value Y+Z=X
\n     would be  the capitalized\tvalue of
\n     his entire income.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court of\t Gujarat in  the case  of M\/s. Hirji
\nVirji Transport & Ors. vs. Basiranbibi (1971) 12 Gujarat Law
\nReporter 783  referred to  all the  three judgments  of this
\nCourt mentioned above, considered the principle laid down in
\nDavies and  Nance and  explained the  law to  be applied for
\nascertaining the  damages in  such cases. Reference was also
\nmade to\t the judgment  of Lord\tReid in\t Taylor vs.  O’Conor
\n1970(1)\t All   England\tReports\t  365  and  the\t High  Court
\nreiterated Lord Reid’s words which we extract:\n<\/p>\n
     “In ordinary  cases  which\t do  not
\n     involve special  factors, as one in
\n     Taylor’s  case   as   regards   the
\n     questions of income tax and surtax,
\n     the wealth\t of experience of Judges
\n     and Counsels  would be  an adequate
\n     guide  to\tthe  selection\tof  this
\n     multiplier without any necessity of
\n     any expert\t evidence,  so\tthat  on
\n     this method  by adopting  a  common
\n     multiplier\t the  loss  of\tpendency
\n     over  a  period  of  years\t can  be
\n     worked out\t a lump\t sum to be given
\n     to the dependents.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Gujarat  High\tCourt  also  pointed  out  that\t the
\nprinciples laid\t down in  the case of Davies and that in the
\ncase of Nance led to the same end-results because, although,
\nas per\tViscount Simon\tthe dependency amount is required to
\nbe multiplied  by the  figure of the expected useful life of
\nthe  deceased,\t the  sum   has\t to  be\t discounted  because
\nequivalent amount  in lump  sum has to be worked out keeping
\nin view the fact that the sum was to be spread over a period
\nof  years  and\tsecondly,  allowance  had  to  be  made\t for
\nuncertainties like  the possible  pre-mature  death  of\t the
\ndependents or  of the deceased had he been alive, remarriage
\nof the\twidow,\tacceleration  over  other  interest  of\t the
\nestate, etc.  The Gujarat  High Court  expressed the opinion
\nthat if\t proper discount  is done after arriving at the lump
\nsum equivalent\tto this dependency, spread over for a period
\nof years  the end-result will be the same as that calculated
\nby using  a proper  multiplier\tto  the\t annual\t loss.\tThis
\nmultiplier is  the year’s  purchase factor. Referring to the
\ndecision of  Lord Diplock in Mallett vs. McMonagle, 1969 (2)
\nAll England Reports 178 at 191, wherein an annuity table was
\nworked out,  the High  Court observed  that 12 to 15′ years’
\nshould be  the normal multiplier and for the case before the
\ncourt the  outer multiplier  of 15  years purchase  would be
\nproper. The  same view\tin regard to the range for a healthy
\nyoung man  was expressed  by this  Court in  C.K.S.Iyer\t vs.
\nT.K.Nair (AIR<\/a> 1970 SC 376).\n<\/p>\n
     For concluding  the analysis  it is  necessary  now  to
\nrefer to  the judgment\tof this Court in the case of General
\nManager, Kerala State Road Transport, Trivandrum vs. Susamma
\nThomas<\/a> 1994(2)\tSCC 176.  In that case this Court culled out
\nthe   basic   principles   governing   the   assessment\t  of
\ncompensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above
\nand reiterated\tthat the  multiplier  method  is  the  sound
\nmethod of assessing compensation. The Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “The multiplier method involves the
\n     ascertainment  of\t the   loss   of
\n     dependency\t or   the   multiplicand
\n     having regard  to the circumstances
\n     of the  case and  capitalizing  the
\n     multiplicand  by\tan   appropriate
\n     multiplier.  The\tchoice\tof   the
\n     multiplier is determined by the age
\n     of the  deceased (or  that\t of  the
\n     claimants whichever  is higher  and
\n     by\t the   calculation  as\tto  what
\n     capital sum,  if invested at a rate
\n     of interest appropriate to a stable
\n     economy,\t would\t   yeild     the
\n     multiplicand  by\tway  of\t  annual
\n     interest.\tIn   ascertaining  this,
\n     regard should  also be  had to  the
\n     fact that\tultimately  the\t capital
\n     sum should also be consumed-up over
\n     the period for which the dependency
\n     is expected to last.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  principle  was  explained  and  illustrated  by  a
\nmathematical example:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  multiplier\trepresents   the
\n     number of\tYears’ purchase on which
\n     the   loss\t   of\tdependency    is
\n     capitalized. Take\tfor  instance  a
\n     case   where    annual   loss    of
\n     dependency is  Rs.10,000. If  a sum
\n     of Rs.1,00,000  is invested  at 10%
\n     annual interest,  the interest will
\n     take  care\t  of   the   dependency,
\n     perpetually. The multiplier in this
\n     case works\t out to\t 10. If the rate
\n     of interest is 5% per annum and not
\n     10% then  the multiplier  needed to
\n     capitalize the  loss of  the annual
\n     dependency at  Rs.10,000  would  be\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20. Then  the multiplier  i.e., the
\n     number of\tyears’\tpurchase  of  20
\n     will yield\t the  annual  dependency
\n     perpetually.  Then\t  allowance   to
\n     scale  down  the  multiplier  would
\n     have to be made taking into account
\n     the uncertainties\tof  the\t future,
\n     the allowances  for immediate  lump
\n     sum payment,  the period over which
\n     the dependency  is\t to  last  being
\n     shorter and  the capital  feed also
\n     to be spent away over the period of
\n     dependency is  to last etc. Usually
\n     in\t English  Courts  the  operative
\n     multiplier\t rarely\t exceeds  16  as
\n     maximum.  This   will   come   down
\n     accordingly  as   the  age\t of  the
\n     deceased person  (or  that\t of  the
\n     dependents,  whichever  is\t higher)
\n     goes up.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  rightly  clarified\t that  there  should  be  no
\ndeparture from\tthe multiplier\tmethod on  the\tground\tthat
\nSection 110-B Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the
\npresent provision  of Section  168 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)
\nenvisaged  payment   of\t ‘just’\t  compensation\t since\t the
\nmultiplier method is the accepted method for determining and
\nensuring payment  of just  compensation and  is expected  to
\nbring uniformity  and certainty of the\tawards made all over
\nthe country.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  facts of that case the Court said that 12 years
\nwas the\t correct multiplier  to\t be  applied  for  assessing
\ncompensation for  the  death  of  the  victim  of  the\troad
\naccident who  was 39.  Further it  was observed\t that in the
\nabsence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one third of
\nthe gross income towards the personal living expenses of the
\ndeceased. The  court  further  awarded\ta  conventional\t sum
\ntowards loss of consortium and loss of estate.\n<\/p>\n
     We thought\t it necessary  to reiterate  the  method  of
\nworking out  ‘just’ compensation  because, of  late, we have
\nnoticed from  the awards  made by  Tribunals and Courts that
\nthe principle  on which\t the multiplier method was developed
\nhas been  lost sight of and once again a hybrid method based
\non the\tsubjectivity of\t the  Tribunal\/Court  has  surfaced,
\nintroducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in
\nthe matter  of determination  of compensation.\tIt  must  be
\nrealised that  the Tribunal\/  Court has\t to determine a fair
\namount\tof  compensation  awardable  to\t the  victim  of  an
\naccident which\tmust be\t proportionate to the injury caused.
\nThe two\t English decisions to which we have referred earlier
\nprovide the  guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to
\nthe victims.  Under the\t formula advocated my Lord Wright in
\nDavies, the  loss has to be ascertained by first determining
\nthe monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom
\nthe amount  spent on  the deceased,  and thus  assessing the
\nloss  to   the\tdependents   of\t the  deceased.\t The  annual
\ndependency assessed  in this manner is then to be multiplied
\nby the use of an appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate :
\nX, male, aged about 35 years, dies in an accident. He leaves
\nbehind his  widow and  3 minor\tchildren. His monthly income
\nwas Rs.3,500\/-.\t First, deduct\tthe amount  spent on X every
\nmonth. The  rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no
\ndefinite evidence  was forthcoming,  was  to  break  up\t the
\nfamily into  units, taking  two units  for an  adult and one
\nunit for  a minor.  Thus X and his wife make 2 + 2 = 4 units
\nand each  minor one  unit i.e.\t3 units\t in all, totalling 7
\nunits. Thus  the share\tper unit  storks out to Rs.3,500\/7 =
\nRs.500 per  month. It  can thus\t be assumed that Rs.1000 was
\nspent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for
\nhis transport and out-of pocket expense has to be estimated.
\nIn the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket expense at
\nRs.250\/-. Thus\tthe amount spent on the deceased X works out
\nto Rs.1250  per month  leaving a  balance of  Rs.3500-1250 =
\nRs.2250 per  month. This  amount can be taken as the monthly
\nloss to\t X’s dependents.  The  annual  dependenny  comes  to
\nRs.2250 X  12 =\t Rs.27,000. This annual dependency has to be
\nmultiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier to assess
\nthe compensation  under the  head of loss to the dependents.
\nTake the  appropriate multiplier  to be 15. The compensation
\ncomes to  Rs.27,000 X 15 = Rs.4,05,000. To this may be added
\na conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life.
\nEarlier this  conventional amount was pegged down to Rs.3000
\nbut now having regard to the fall in the value of the rupee,
\nit can\tbe raised  to a figure of not more than Rs.10,000\/-.
\nThus the total comes to Rs.4,05,000+10,000 = Rs.4,15,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of
\nNance also,  first the\tannual dependency  is worked out and
\nthen  multiplied   by  the  estimated  useful  life  of\t the
\ndeceased. This\tis generally  determined  on  the  basis  of
\nlongevity. But\tthen, proper  discounting on various factors
\nhaving a  bearing on  the uncertainties\t of life,  such\t as,
\npremature  death   of  the   deceased  or   the\t  dependent,
\nremarriage, accelerated\t payment and  increased\t earning  by
\nwise and  prudent investments, etc., would become necessary.
\nIt  was\t  generally  felt   that  discounting\ton   various
\nimponderables  made   assessment  of   compensation   rather
\ncomplicated and\t cumbersome and\t very often  as a  rough and
\nready measure,\tone-third to  one-half of the dependency was
\nreduced, depending  on the  lite-span  taken.  That  is\t the
\nreason why  courts in India as well as England preferred the
\nDavies’ formula as being simple and more realistic. However,
\nas observed  earlier and  as pointed  out in Susamma Thomas’
\ncase,  usually\tEnglish\t courts\t rarely\t exceed\t 16  as\t the
\nmultiplier. Courts  in India  too followed  the same pattern
\ntill recently  when Tribunals\/Courts  began to\tuse a hybrid
\nmethod of  using Nance’s method without making deduction for
\nimponderables.\n<\/p>\n
     The situation  has now  undergone\ta  change  with\t the
\nenactment of  the Motor\t Vehicles Act,\t1988, as  amended by
\nAmendment  Act,\t 54  of\t 1994.\tThe  most  important  change
\nintroduced  by\tthe  amendment\tinsofar\t as  it\t relates  to
\ndetermination of  compensation is  the insertion of Sections
\n163A and  163B in  Chapter XI  entitled ‘Insurance  of Motor
\nVehicles against  Third Party  Risks’. Section\t165A  begins
\nwith a\tnon-obstante clause  and  provides  for\t payment  of
\ncompensation, as  indicated in\tthe Second  Schedule, to the
\nlegal representatives  of the  deceased or  injured, as\t the
\ncase may  be. Now if we turn to the Second Schedule, we find
\na table\t fixing the  mode of calculation of compensation for
\nthird party  accident injury  claims arising  out  of  fatal
\naccidents. The\tfirst column  gives the\t age  group  of\t the
\nvictims\t of   accident,\t the  second  column  indicates\t the
\nmultiplier and\tthe subsequent\thorizontal figures  indicate
\nthe quantum  of compensation  in thousand  payable  to\ttile
\nheirs of  the deceased\tvictim. According  to this table the
\nmultiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to
\nwhich the  victim belonged.  Thus, under  this schedule\t the
\nmaximum multiplier  can be upto 18 and not 16 as was held in
\nSusamma Thomas’ case.\n<\/p>\n
     We must  at once  point out  that\tthe  calculation  of
\nCompensation and  the amount  worked  out  in  the  schedule
\nsuffer from several defects. For example, in item No.1 for a
\nvictim aged  15 years,\tthe multiplier\tis shown  to  be  15
\nyears’ and  the multiplicand  is shown\tto be Rs.3000\/-. The
\ntotal should  be 3000  x 15  = 45,000 but the same is worked
\nout at\tRs.60,000\/-.  Similarly,  in  the  second  item\t the
\nmultiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs.9000; the total
\nshould\thave   been  Rs.1,44,000   but\tis   shown   to\t  be
\nRs.1,71,000\/-. To  put it briefly, the table abounds in such
\nmistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the courts can go by the
\nready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the
\nselection of  multiplier  cannot  in  all  cases  be  solely
\ndependent on  the age  of the  deceased. For example, if the
\ndeceased, a  bachelor,\tdies  at  the  age  of\t45  and\t his
\ndependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be
\nrelevant in the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes
\nare limited  to actual\tcalculations only and not in respect
\nof other  items. What  we propose  to emphasise\t is that the
\nmultiplier cannot  exceed 18 years’ purchase factor. This is
\nthe improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it
\nshould not  exceed 16.\tWe thought it necessary to state the
\ncorrect legal  position as  Courts and\tTribunals are  using
\nhigher multiplier  as in the present case where the Tribunal
\nused the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34,
\nthereby showing\t lack of  awareness or the background of the
\nmultiplier system on Davies’ case.\n<\/p>\n
     We had indicated we would not interfere with the amount
\nawarded, since\tin our\tview, while  the multiplier  used is
\nexcessive, we are satisfied that a very low multiplicand was
\nused as\t the loss  of dependency.  If we were to correct the
\nmultiplicand   and   use   the\t correct   multiplier,\t the
\ncompensation would  wors out  to near about the same figure.
\nTherefore, while  agreeing with the learned Advocate for the
\nappellant, we  are disinclined\tto interfere with the figure
\nof compensation. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal\/Court
\nfell into an error in the choice of the multiplier and allow
\nthe  appeal   to  that\t extent\t but   we  do  not,  in\t the
\ncircumstances of  the case,  interfere with  the quantum  of
\ncompensation. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     The copy  of this\tJudgment may be sent to all the High
\nCourts\twith   a  direction   to   circulate   it   to\t the
\nCourts\/Tribunals   dealing    with   the    Motor   Accident
\ncompensation cases.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 362, JT 1996 (5) 356 Author: A A.M. Bench: Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) PETITIONER: U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: TRILOK CHANDRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/1996 BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nU.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3751,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\",\"name\":\"U.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"wordCount":3751,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996","name":"U.P.State Road ... vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T16:55:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-p-state-road-vs-trilok-chandra-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.P.State Road … vs Trilok Chandra & Ors on 7 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}