Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SHANTI DEVI AND ORS.

Decided
3 February 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 731 · 2009 INSC 95

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 732, margin G

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the cross objections filed by the claimants who are respondents herein while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation.

p. 732, margin G

3

Both the appeal and the cross objections related award passed in MACT No. 88/1988 passed by Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kanpur (in short 'MACT'). Petition was filed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles 1939 (in short the 'Act'). It was stated in the said petition one Mahesh Chandra Verma (hereinafter referred ·deceased') was the husband of respondent No.1 and of respondents 2 to 6 and had lost his life in a vehicular accident.

p. 733, margin A

4

The MACT noted that bus No.U.H.K.883 owned appellant-corporation was involved in an accident on and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned it was taken to be Rs.1,000/- p.m. and Rs.500/- was deducted for personal expenses. In mortem report the age of the deceased was stated years and therefore taking the annual income of Rs.6,000/compensation was assessed at Rs.90,000/- by applying multiplier of 15 but deduction of 40% was made for payment. Interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the application was awarded.

p. 733, margin C

5

Questioning correctness of the award, the Corporation filed an appeal and cross objections were filed by the The High Court found that the income as assessed and therefore enhanced the same and fixed the compensation payable at Rs.2,45,000/- with 6% interest. It was held High Court that the income of the deceased can be at Rs.2,000/- p.m. and one-third was to be deducted for personal expenses and multiplier of 15 was adopted. Accordingly, the compensation payable was worked

p. 733, margin E

6

Stand of the Corporation is that since the claimed to be running a business, the same is presumed continuing and there is no loss of income. This plea was down by the High Court.

p. 733, margin G

7

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier as adopted is high. The High Court overlooked the fact that the cross objections were filed after about 9 years and there is no basis for taking the income·to be Rs.2,000/- p.m.

p. 734, margin A

8

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

p. 734, margin B

9

It was pointed out that the delay in presentation of the cross objections was condoned and the same was not questioned. It is true, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that no material was placed regarding the income of the deceased and the multiplier as adopted is high. It is also equally true that delay in filing the cross objections was condoned without justifiable reasons but condonation order was passed on 9.1.2006 and there is no challenge to the same. a case where there is lack of material regarding the income the deceased, some amount of guesswork is there. But the same should not be totally detached from reality.

p. 734, margin B

10

In the present case the appropriate multiplier would 11 and monthly income can be taken at Rs.1500/-. In other words, the annual income can be taken at Rs.18,000/-. Making one third deduction for personal expenses the balance Rs.12,000/- and if multiplier of 11 is adopted the compensation works out to be Rs.1,32,000/-. The MACT and the High Court have granted 6% interest from the date of application which in order. It is stated that certain amounts have been deposited before the MACT and a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in compliance with the order of this Court dated 17.8.2007. The balance amount shall be deposited with the concerned MACT within four weeks. The mode of disbursement and amount be kept in fixed shall be fixed by the MACT keeping in view the interests of the minors.

p. 734, margin D

11

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. N.J. Appeal partly allowed.

p. 734, margin G