Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2008 DIGILAW 2151 (SC)

Krishna Devi v. Union of India

2008-12-17

DALVEER BHANDARI, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2008
JUDGMENT : Bhandari & Bedi, JJ. I.A. No. 1 of 2008 is allowed. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 19.2.2007 delivered in F.A.O. No. 408 of 1999. 4. This court on 16.5.2007 passed the following order:- "Issue notice limited to the question of multiplier to be applied in the present case." 5. In the instant case, deceased was 32 years of age when the accident had occurred. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 13. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the Second Scheduled to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to this Schedule for the age-group of 30 but not exceeding 35, the multiplier of 17 should be applied. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court ought to have applied multiplier of 17. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that in view of the Second Schedule, 17 should be the proper multiplier in this case. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs. 2,59,740/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date of filing to the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, appellants claimants went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court enhanced the compensation by a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that 17 is the correct multiplier to be applied in this case. On applying multiplier of 17, the total amount of compensation would work out to be Rs. 3,39,660/-. 9. We direct the respondents to pay to the appellants the difference between the award amount granted by the Tribunal and the amount of Rs. 3,39,660/- as expeditiously as possible in any event within two months from today. The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the differential amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filling of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.