1. Motor accident claim — Dispute over adequacy of compensation concerning the multiplier, future prospects, and consortium. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1659
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI & ORS - Appellant
Versus
MANI MUTHUPANDI & ORS - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 20882 OF 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1636 of 2016]
Decided on : 05-12-2017
Important Points
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, particularly the application of multipliers and the entitlement to future prospects.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Headnote
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54; Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 13 SCALE 12
Fact of the Case:
The claimants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court for the death of the deceased in a motor accident. The courts had differing opinions on the multiplier to be applied and the amount of consortium and compensation for loss of love, care, and guidance for minor children.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering various precedents, ordered an interim enhancement of compensation and referred the issue of future prospects to a larger Bench. Subsequently, in view of a recent judgment, the court allowed a further enhancement of 15% towards future prospects and disposed of the appeal.
Issues: Inadequacy of compensation, application of multiplier, determination of consortium, compensation for loss of love, care, and guidance for minor children, and the issue of future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles laid down in Sarla Verma, Rajesh, Reshma Kumari, and the pending Reference in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa, and ultimately applied the recent judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others to allow an additional 15% towards future prospects.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the claimants were entitled to an interim enhancement of compensation and a further 15% enhancement towards future prospects.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimants challenged the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and High Court regarding the multiplier and future prospects. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court failed to follow binding precedents on multipliers and incorrectly linked consortium awards to the age of the deceased. (Para 2 )
4. Deceased persons above 50 years are entitled to 15% addition for future prospects, and consortium is a right independent of expected life span. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Compensation enhanced by applying multiplier 11, awarding consortium to spouse and children, and granting 15% addition for future prospects. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. What is the correct multiplier for a deceased person aged 52?
In accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma, the multiplier to be applied for a deceased person of this age is 11, regardless of the expected retirement age. (Para 2 )
7. How is compensation for loss of consortium determined?
Consortium is the right of a spouse to company, care, help, and affection. Children are also entitled to compensation for loss of love, care, and guidance, which is an emotional element independent of the deceased's expected life span. (Para 2 )
8. Are deceased persons above 50 years entitled to future prospects?
Yes, as per the Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, claimants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects for deceased persons above 50 years. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 03.03.2017, this Court passed the following order:-
1. 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 p
