Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS. vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

SCR Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1098
Year/Volume: 2009/ Volume 5
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2009
Petitioner: SMT. SARLA VERMA & ORS.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Partly Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2009 INSC 506
Judgment Delivered by: N/A
Respondent: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /3483/2008
Order/Judgment: Order
1. Headnote

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

Motor vehicle accident - Compensation awarded by Tribunal - Enhanced by High Court - On appeal, Held: Income of the deceased towards future prospects could be taken into account - Standardization thereof - Deduction towards personal and living expenses - Guidelines given - Selection of multiplier - Criteria laid down - Computation of compensation taking into account future pay revisions. if claimants delay the proceedings they can rely upon revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency - However, promptness cannot be punished in this manner - Hence revision in pay scale subsequent to death and before final hearing cannot be taken into account for determining the income for calculating compensation - Personal and living expenses determined - Enhancement of compensation and interest thereon allowed - Enhanced compensation awarded to be taken by the widow exclusively.  

The appeal has been filed against the High Court judgment. It sought higher compensation. On the basis of the contentions raised by the appellants and respondents, the following questions arose for consideration: 

(i) Whether the future prospects can be taken into account for determining the income of the deceased ? If Aso, whether pay revisions that occurred during the pendency of the claim proceedings or appeals therefrom should be taken into account ?

(ii) Whether the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be less than onefourth (1/4th) as contended by the appellants, or should be one-third (1/3rd) as contended by the respondents ? 

(iii) Whether the High Court erred in taking the multiplier as 13 ?

(iv) What should be the compensation ?

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2009 AIR 3104 = 2009 (6) SCC 121 = 2009 (6) Suppl. SCC 121 = 2009 (6) JT 495 = 2009 (6) Suppl. JT 495 = 2009 (6) SCALE 129