Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, R.Banumathi, JJ.
Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Mani Muthupandi and Others - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1636 of 2016
Decided On : 03-03-2017
For the Petitioners: Mullapudi Rambabu, N. Eswara Rao, (For M/s. M. Rambabu & Co.), Advs.
For the Respondents: K.K. Bhat, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Emotional element has nothing to do with expected life span.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Death in road accident – Quantum of compensation – Deceased aged 52 years – Consortium is right of spouse to company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate – Children are also entitled for award of compensation for loss of love, care and guidance – This emotional element has nothing to do with expected life span – In case, deceased is above age of 50 years, enhancement of 15 per cent is to be given towards loss of future prospects – By way of an interim measure, petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by fixing multiplier as "11" – Widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and children together are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection – Compensation shall carry 9% interest – Insurance Company directed to re-work compensation accordingly and deposit amount with Tribunal – As far as enhancement under head "future prospects", petition to be posted after Reference is answered by larger Bench. (Paras 5, 6, 12 and 13)
Facts of Case:
Fatal accident claim case. Aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court, petitioners have filed this Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
We are inclined to pass an interim Order on compensation as far as undisputed areas are concerned and then post this petition after Reference is answered by larger Bench.
Result : Interim order passed.
ORDER
Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal') and the High Court, the petitioners have filed this Special Leave Petition. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was aged 52 years, the Tribunal in the award dated 22.10.2008, declined to grant any addition for future prospects in the salary and adopted the multiplier as "6.31". An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation amount was to carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum.
2. The claimants/petitioners, not satisfied with the compensation, approached the High Court.
3. As per the impugned Judgment dated 24.03.2015, the appeal was disposed of. The learned Judge took note of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in adopting the multiplier and observed that going by the said decision, the multiplier to be applied is "11". However, taking note of the fact that the deceased would have retired at the age of 60 years, fixed the multiplier as "8". In the matter of consortium, it was observed that "... deceased died not in the prime of his youth but at his middle age", and hence the widow was granted consortium of Rs. 25,000/-. No addition was made towards future prospects.
4. It is shocking and disturbing that the learned Judge declined to follow the principles laid down by this Court in unmistakeable terms in Sarla Verma (supra) as far as multiplier is concerned. We do not want to say anything more. Therefore, in this case, the multiplier is taken as "11".
5. As far as consortium is concerned, this Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 has held that consortium is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. It was also held in the above case that the children are also entitled for award of compensation for loss of love, care and guidance. This emotional element has nothing to do with the expected life span. Having observed that it was time to revisit compensation granted under the conventional heads, it was held that the widow was entitled to loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Towards loss of love, care and guidance for minor children, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also awarded.
6. It was also held in Rajesh (supra) that in case, the deceased is above the age of 50 years, the enhancement of 15 per cent was to be given towards loss of future prospects.
7. Close to Rajesh (supra), there was another decision of this Court, again of the strength of three Judges, in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 rendered on 02.04.2013.
8. While Rajesh (supra) went a step ahead of Sarla Verma (supra) in awarding 15 per cent enhancement towards loss of future prospects, the decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) reaffirmed the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) which declined any addition towards future prospects after the age of 50 years.
9. It may be noted that there was no reference of Reshma Kumari (supra) in Rajesh (supra), apparently, since the said judgment had not been reported by the time Rajesh (supra) was rendered.
10. On 02.07.2014, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014, taking note of the conflicting positions as far as addition of future prospects after the age of 50 years, in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Rajesh (supra), has made a Reference of this aspect to a larger Bench. We are informed that the Reference is still pending.
11. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to pass an interim Order on compensation as far as the undisputed areas are concerned and then post this petition after the Reference is answered by the larger Bench.
12. Therefore, by way of an interim
