Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. F. Nariman, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9581 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3192 of 2018)
Decided On : 18-09-2018
(2017) 16 SCC 680 – Relied upon
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Dependents – Deceased aged 24 years and unmarried – Mother pre-deceased – Father 65 years old – Deceased survived by an unmarried sister – Father and sister held dependent on deceased. (Para 8)
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – On account of funeral expenses reduced from 25000 to 15000 – Rs. 15,000 awarded towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of power under Article 142, Constitution of India – Compensation of 4000 to each dependent of deceased, father and sister, awarded as Filial Consortium. (Para 8)
2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); 2014 (3) UC 1687; (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB) – Referred
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Respondent 3 of the vehicle and Insurance Company held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded – Insurance Company will pay the full amount of compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and can recover 50% of the amount from Respondent No. 3. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
Compensation should be awarded head wise.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - Compensation must be awarded head-wise under the Motor Vehicles Act (!) (!) . - For a deceased aged 24 years, future prospects are to be awarded at 40% of established income, not 50% (!) (!) . - Income of the deceased was assessed at the minimum wage for an unskilled worker (!) (!) . - Father and unmarried sister were held as dependents entitled to compensation (!) (!) (!) . - Loss of love and affection was awarded at Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) and funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000 (!) (!) . - Total compensation awarded was Rs. 14,25,600 with interest, split 60% to one respondent and 40% to another (!) (!) . - The Insurance Company and the vehicle driver are jointly and severally liable for compensation (!) (!) . - The Court can award compensation under relevant heads even if not pleaded, being duty-bound to do justice (!) (!) . - Loss of estate was awarded at Rs. 15,000 and loss of filial consortium at Rs. 80,000 to father and sister (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal was disposed of with modifications on future prospects and related calculations (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the compensation awarded on certain counts by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in FAO No. 6943 of 2015 dated 27.09.2017, to be contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under:
On 01.12.2013, the deceased was riding his motorcycle (Registration No. HR-71B-7681) from Ambli Village to Arjun Majra Village. A relative of the deceased -Mr. Rakesh Kumar was following him on a separate motorcycle on the Sadhaura-Naraingarh Road. A Renault car bearing Registration No. HR-02-AB-4646 driven by Respondent No.3, came from the side, and hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The accident was witnessed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar.
As a result of the accident, the deceased fell and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Naraingarh from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On 02.12.2013 the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Panchkula where the doctors declared him dead.
On the same day, F.I.R. No. 337 was registered at Police Station, Naraingarh on the statement of Mr. Rakesh Kumar who was an eye-witness to the accident.
3. The father, brother, and sister of the deceased filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar ("hereinafter referred to as MACT") praying for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 along with Interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the eye-witness was examined before the MACT. He deposed stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing Namkeen products. The Claimants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000 per month. However, they were unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. The MACT took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e. Rs. 5,342 per month on the basis of the Notification dated 13.08.2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wages for different categories of work.
The MACT awarded compensation to the family of the deceased as follows:
Head
Compensation awarded
i. Income:
Rs. 5,432 per month
ii. Deduction towards personal expenses:
Rs. 1780 (1/3rd of income)
iii. Multiplier:
7 (as per the age of the father)
iv. Loss of future income :
Rs. 2,99,208 [i.e. (5432 – 1780) x 12x7]
v. Loss of love and affection:
Rs. 25,000
vi. Funeral Expenses:
Rs. 15,000
Total Compensation awarded:
Rs. 3,39,208 with interest @ 7% from the date of the claim until realization and costs.
The MACT did not award any compensation to the brother of the deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependent. Compensation was awarded to the aged father and the unmarried sister of the deceased, who were held to be dependents.
The Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle - Respondent No. 3 both were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - i.e. the father and sister of the deceased filed an Appeal against the order of the MACT before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
The High Court held that the facts relating to the accident were admitted and proved before the MACT. It was established that the deceased had died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 3.
The High Court found that the MACT had used the wr
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
