R. Valli & Ors. Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd

FACTS OF THE CASE

• V. Rajsekaran had lost his life in a two-wheeler accident on 22 February 2011 with a bus belonging to the respondent.
• The legal heirs of the deceased appealed in the Supreme Court after being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Madras High Court dated 7 November 2017.
• The High Court in its order set the compensation amount to Rs. 15,12,628 /-
• As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal head injuries and died immediately. Born on April 11, 1956, he was 54 years old at the time of the incident. Considering the deceased’s income and age, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai, referred to as the ‘Tribunal,’ granted compensation amounting to Rs. 13,82,628/-
• The Tribunal determined that the accident resulted from the bus driver’s reckless and negligent driving. The appellant presented testimony from PW-3, the Assistant Manager of M/s Areva T & D India Limited, stating the deceased’s monthly salary as Rs.23,062. After considering the age of superannuation (58 years) and deducting income tax at 10%, the Tribunal calculated a monthly income of Rs.20,756. Accounting for personal expenses, it awarded a compensation of Rs.5,60,412 for the employment period. Additionally, applying a multiplier of 8 on 50% of the projected income, the Tribunal granted Rs.7,47,216. Conventional heads of compensation were also factored in, resulting in a total award of Rs.13,82,628.
• The High Court upheld the conclusions made by the learned Tribunal, endorsing a multiplier of 3 until the superannuation date and subsequently a multiplier of 8, considering a life dependency of 10 years. While sustaining the compensation amount for dependency, the High Court increased the compensation for conventional aspects, resulting in a total award of Rs.15,12,628/-.
• Upon Recalculation by the Supreme Court, the amount of compensation was set at 24,33,064/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.

ISSUES

• What is the actual amount of compensation the appellant is entitled for?
• What should be the method for the calculation of the compensation?

ARGUMENTS

• Appellants:
  • The appellants contended that the multiplier methodology applied by the Tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court, was flawed and unsustainable.
  • The argument put forth was that the multiplier should be determined based on the age and income of the deceased at the time of death, rather than considering the remaining years of service.
  • Referring to the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was asserted that the age of the deceased at the time of death serves as the foundation for selecting a multiplier, not the years left in employment.

• Respondent
  • A three-Judge Bench, as mentioned in the case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410, has utilized the multiplier approach, considering the age of the deceased, regardless of whether the deceased was unmarried.

JUDGEMENT

• The legal heirs of late V. Rajasekaran have filed an appeal, expressing dissatisfaction with a decision issued by the Madras High Court on 7.11.2017. The High Court granted compensation totaling Rs.15,12,628/-, coupled with an interest rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition until the date of actual payment. This award stems from the demise of V. Rajasekaran in a motor vehicle accident on 22.02.2011.
• The individual riding a two-wheeler met with an accident when a bus owned by the respondent collided with his vehicle. This resulted in the deceased sustaining fatal head injuries and an immediate death. Born on April 11, 1956, he was 54 years old at the time of the accident. Considering factors such as income and age, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai awarded compensation amounting to Rs.13,82,628/-.
• The Tribunal determined that the accident resulted from the bus driver’s reckless and negligent driving. The appellant presented testimony from PW-3, the Assistant Manager of M/s Areva T & D India Limited, stating the deceased’s monthly salary as Rs.23,062. The salary certificate (Ex.P.9) was submitted as evidence. The Tribunal accepted the income as Rs.23,062 and noted a superannuation age of 58 years, leading to a dependency period of 3 years. With a 10% income tax deduction, the monthly income was calculated as Rs.20,756. After subtracting 1/4th for personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,60,412 for the employment period. Additionally, applying a multiplier of 8 on 50% of the projected income, it granted Rs.7,47,216. Compensation was also awarded for conventional aspects, resulting in a total sum of Rs.13,82,628.

CONCLUSION

The legal heirs of V. Rajasekaran have appealed against the Madras High Court’s decision dated 7.11.2017, which granted compensation of Rs.15,12,628/- with a 7.5% interest rate from the petition date to the actual payment date. This compensation relates to V. Rajasekaran’s death in a motor vehicle accident on 22.02.2011.

 In another case, involving a fatal two-wheeler accident with a bus owned by the respondent, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Chennai awarded compensation of Rs.13,82,628/-. The Tribunal determined that the accident resulted from the bus driver’s negligent driving. The deceased, born on April 11, 1956, was 54 years old at the time of the incident. The compensation calculation considered the deceased’s monthly salary of Rs.23,062, applying a 10% income tax deduction and deducting 1/4th for personal expenses. A compensation of Rs.5,60,412 was awarded for the employment period. Further, a multiplier of 8 on 50% of the projected income resulted in an additional Rs.7,47,216. The Tribunal also awarded compensation for conventional aspects, bringing the total to Rs.13,82,628.

Written by Ayushi Sinha an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin