Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently increased compensation for the family of a BSNL employee who died after being hit by a rashly driven bus, noting that the high court had unjustifiably applied the split method to lower the amount without providing any reasons.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal noted that the high court's decision revealed that a substantial reduction in compensation was on account of application of a 'split multiplier' to the income of deceased.

"In our considered view, the High Court has erred in not considering the principles laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma Vs DTC (2009) and Sumathi Vs M/s National Insurance Company Ltd (2021)," the bench said.

Acting on a civil appeal filed by Maya Singh and others, the apex court directed for payment of Rs 33.03 lakh to them by setting aside the high court's judgment, which had reduced the compensation of Rs 28.66 lakh awarded by the tribunal to Rs 19.66 lakh only.

The facts were that on March 07, 2014, at about 03.00 pm, Laxman Das Mahour (deceased) was traveling with his son Jugal Kishore on a bus. After getting off the bus, he was walking on the road when the offending bus dashed against him. Tragically, Laxman Das succumbed to his injuries at the scene of the accident.

He was 57-58 years of age and was employed as a phone mechanic with Bharat Sanchar Nagar Limited. He was survived by his widow and four children.

The bench pointed out that in Sarla Verma’s case, the top court had held that while calculating the compensation, the multiplier to be used should start 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.

With this, the bench said, "It is clear that normally courts and tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgment of this court in Sarla Verma. Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded. In the case in hand, neither any special reason has been recorded by the High Court while applying the split method nor we find there is one in the facts of the case."

In the case in hand, the bench noted that the deceased was a technically qualified person. "People are generally healthy at that age and continue working even after retirement," the bench said.

Considering the factual aspects and position of law, the bench said, "In our view, the compensation on account of loss of income while applying the multiplier of 9 by the tribunal without applying the split method is the correct calculation on that account. Moreover, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had failed to award future prospects while calculating the compensation."

Considering the age of the deceased, the court held that the appellant would be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 15%. On account of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount of Rs 15,000 each awarded by the high court was as per law. As far as loss of consortium was concerned, there were three claimants, namely, the widow, one son and one daughter. They would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium at the rate of Rs 40,000 each, the Supreme Court ordered. 

The court found the tribunal had erred in awarding only a sum of Rs 1,00,000 in total.

The bench finally held that the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs 33,03,000 with payment of interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum as was awarded by the tribunal.

Case Title: Maya Singh And Others Vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd And Others