Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
SHASHIKALA & ORS. - Appellants
Versus
GANGALAKSHMAMMA & ANR. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2836 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6016/2014)
Decided on: 13-03-2015
(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Self employed person – Additions for future earnings – Courts differing in view – Matter pending before larger Bench. (Para 14)
(2013) 9 SCC 54; (2013) 9 SCC 65; S.L.P (C) No.16735/2014 – Referred
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Just compensation – Does not mean arbitrary determination resulting in wind fall for claimants. (Para 15)
(2003) 2 SCC 274; (2009) 6 SCC 280; (2009) 13 SCC 710 – Relied upon
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Claimants filing IT returns of deceased for 2005-06 and 20060-07 – High Court taking average of the two – Not proper – Income as per the latest return after deducting Income and professional tax as also income form house property and personal expenses ought to be considered – High Court adopting proper multiplier of 14 considering the age of the deceased – Compensation under conventional heads should be awarded liberally – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.19,32,310/-. (Para 16, 17, 18, 19)
(2013) 9 SCC 54; (2013) 9 SCC 166 – Relied upon
Per V. Gopala Gowda, J.
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Addition of future prospects in case of self employed persons – Matter left open as it has been referred to the CJI for placing before suitable larger Bench. (Para 10)
(2013) 9 SCC 65; (2013) 9 SCC 54; (1994) 2 SCC 176; (1996) 3 SCC 179; (2003) 3SCC 148; (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Referred
(e) Administration of Justice – Rule of ‘judicial discipline and propriety’ – Theory of precedents – A quorum of two Judges cannot refer the matter to five Judge Bench or larger Bench – It could refer a matter only to a three Judge Bench – However, it is open to the CJI to constitute a suitable larger Bench in accordance with law. (Para 10)
(2001) 4 SCC 448; (2002) 1 SCC 1; (2005) 2 SCC 673; (2014) 3 SCC 210 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This is case relating compensation for motor accident.
Finding of the Court:
Compensation needs to be enhanced.
Result: Compensation enhanced. Question of compensation in respect of future earning in case of self employed persons left open subject to decision of a larger Bench.
Key Points: - Supreme Court enhanced compensation from Rs.14,69,372 (High Court) to Rs.19,32,310 for claimants after motor accident death of self-employed deceased aged 45 years (!) [1000564780018]. - High Court erred by averaging income from IT returns of 2005-06 (Rs.1,08,713) and 2006-07 (Rs.2,02,911); Court adopted latest 2006-07 income of Rs.2,02,911, deducted income tax (10%), professional tax (Rs.2,400), house property income (Rs.20,000), and 1/4th personal expenses to arrive at annual dependency loss of Rs.1,20,165 [1000564780008][1000564780009][1000564780015]. - Multiplier of 14 applied considering deceased's age of 45 years, resulting in loss of dependency of Rs.16,82,310 [1000564780016]. - Conventional heads awarded liberally: Rs.1,00,000 loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000 loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000 funeral expenses, Rs.25,000 loss of estate, totaling Rs.2,50,000 [1000564780017]. - Question of adding future prospects to income of self-employed persons left open, pending decision by larger Bench due to conflicting views in Reshma Kumari (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh (2013) 9 SCC 54 (!) [1000564780012] (!) . - Two-judge Bench cannot directly refer matter to five-judge or larger Bench; can only refer to three-judge Bench, subject to CJI constituting larger Bench (!) (!) (!) . - "Just compensation" under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act must be fair and reasonable, not arbitrary or a windfall [1000564780014] (!) . - Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,62,938 payable with 9% interest from claim petition date; apportioned among wife and children [1000564780018].
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment in M.F.A. No.136/2009 (MV) dated 15.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, in and by which, the High Court modified the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘the tribunal’) by enhancing the compensation to Rs.14,69,372/-from Rs.7,85,000/-awarded by the tribunal.
3. Appellant No.1 is the wife, appellants No.2 to 4 are children and appellants No.5 to 6 are the parents of the deceased Late Shri H.S. Ravi. The appellants have filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of deceased Sri H.S. Ravi who had met with an accident on 14.12.2006. On the fateful day, the deceased Ravi was proceeding in a motor cycle as a pillion rider. The rider of the motor cycle applied sudden brake due to which both rider and pillion rider fell down and both sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the motor cycle died on the spot. Ravi who was a pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and was immediately rushed to the hospital. However, after six days i.e. on 20.12.2006, deceased–Ravi succumbed to the injuries. Deceased–Ravi was aged 45 years and he was engaged in a transport business of supplying newspapers from the Head Office destination to other places. The deceased was paying income-tax and was an income-tax assessee. Stating that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and that they have lost the support of the bread winner of the family, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.33,90,000/-.
4. The tribunal has taken the income of the deceased–Ravi at Rs.75,000/-per annum and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the tribunal calculated the loss of dependncy at Rs.50,000/-per annum. Taking the age of the deceased as 46 years, the tribunal adopted multiplier 13 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-(Rs.50,000/-x 13) towards loss of dependency. In addition to this, the tribunal awarded conventional damages of Rs.35,000/-(Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses) and Rs.1,00,000/-towards medical expenses as against the claim of Rs.1,82,150/-. Thus, the tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,85,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by the said award of the tribunal, the appellants filed appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court modified the award by recalculating the income of the deceased. Taking the income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the High Court calculated average of the same and taken the income at Rs. 1,55,812/- per annum. After making deductions towards income-tax, professional tax and income from house property, the High Court calculated the net income of deceased at Rs.1,17,831/- per annum. The High Court deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and to the remaining amount of Rs.88,373/- applied multiplier of 14 and accordingly re-determined the loss of dependency at Rs.12,37,222/- as against Rs.6,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Awarding conventional damages at Rs. 45,000/- and medical expenses at Rs.1,87,150/-, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,69,372/-. Still aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, appellants have filed this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants–claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the High Court was neither just nor reasonable. It was submitted that the High Court erred in calculating the average of the income from the income of the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. It was further submitted that as per the decision in the case of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 the High Court ought to have made an addition of 30% of the net income of the deceased in computation of future prospects as in the instant case deceased–Ravi was being in the age group of 40-5
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
