SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 7629 of 2022]
DATE: 21/210/2022
ACT: Motor Vehicle Act
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.854 of 2014, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.
2. That the wife of the appellant no.1 died in a vehicular accident. At the relevant time, the deceased was aged 25 years and was a housewife. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards the compensation under different heads. The Learned Tribunal awarded the loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/per month. As at the relevant time the deceased was pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/for foetus. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/under different heads:
| Head of Claim | MACT |
| Income | 1500/-pm |
| Future Prospect | – |
| Loss of Dependency (Annual Income after adjusting deductions and future prospects *Multiplier) | Rs.3,24,000/- |
| Medical expenses | Rs.15,18,000/- |
| For Fetus | Rs.50,000- |
| Loss of Consortium Or Loss of Love and affection | 10,000 + 10,000 |
| Conventional Head (Funeral Expense and Loss of Estate) | 20,000 |
| Award | 19,12,200 @ 7.5% |
2.1 In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation at Rs.29,34,000/under different heads:
| Head of Claim | MACT | High Court |
| Income | 1500/-pm | 6000/-pm notional |
| Future Prospect | – | – |
| Loss of Dependency (Annual Income after adjusting deductions and future prospects *Multiplier) | Rs.3,24,000/- | Rs. 12,96,000/- |
| Medical expenses | Rs.15,18,000/- | Rs. 15,18,000/- |
| For Fetus | Rs.50,000 | Rs.50,000/- |
| Loss of Consortium Or Loss of Love and affection | 10,000 + 10,000 | – |
| Conventional Head (Funeral Expense and Loss of Estate) | 20,000 | 70,000 |
| Award | 19,12,200 @ 7.5% | 29,34,000 @ 7.5% |
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants original claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month only. It is submitted that even the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than Rs.6,000/per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awarding the loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken into consideration at all.
3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awarding Rs.50,000/towards foetus. It is submitted that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents – Insurance Company has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the deceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/per month. However, has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the loss of dependency considering future prospects.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing the tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/per month. The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects.
5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/as awarded by the High Court for loss of foetus.
5.2 The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000/each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection.
5.3 To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified.
6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,82,000/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
J. [M.R. SHAH]
J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 21, 2022.
6 thoughts on “Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors (21/10/2022)”
Comments are closed.
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates:
>
” 168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.-On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 163 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:
…..
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.”
DEDUCTION
So far as deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased, following the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Tribunal directed deduction of 1/3rd of the earning of the deceased, the latter being determined on the income of her spouse. That was, in our view, the proper course. We hold so because, even if we leave out the husband of the deceased from being treated as a dependent, there were two minor children at the material point of time who ought to have been treated as dependent family members.
JUST COMPENSATION
In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra):- “Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance”.
Interference with the compensation granted by the High Court
>
While considering the question of interference with the compensation granted by the High Court under the head of ‘love and affection’ it is only appropriate to refer to a two Judge-Bench decision of this Court in Jana Bhai and Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.5 Evidently, the two Judge Bench took note of the fact that the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case , has recognized only three conventional heads where compensation are awardable viz., ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and the ‘funeral expenses’. Then, the two Judge-Bench referred to the decision of this Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, which, in turn, had virtually followed by three Judge Bench of this Court in United Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur. It was held therein that as held in Magma’s case (supra) though compensation under the head of ‘love and affection’ is impermissible compensation for ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ are admissible.
Loss of Consortium
>
In Rajesh (2013) 9 SCC 54, the Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi (2012) 6 SCC 421.
Consortium
>
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.”