2020 Supreme(SC) 411

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Navin Sinha, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2624 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 13964 of 2018)
WITH
RAJENDRA SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2625 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 16261 of 2018)
Decided on : 18-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Determination of just compensation shall not depend upon financial position of victim or claimant but rather on capacity and ability of deceased to provide happiness in life to claimants.
(2) Loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Death of mother and her child in road accident – Total compensation of Rs.3,54,500/- with 7.5% interest awarded by Tribunal to mother and Rs.1,60,000/- with 7.5% interest to child, after 50% deduction on account of contributory negligence – Appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed by High Court – Deceased were travelling in a horse cart along with others to a religious congregation – It is not the case of respondents that first deceased was driving horse cart or was owner of same, much less that it was being driven under her supervision – Deceased were travelling as passengers along with others – Fact that horse cart may have been in middle of road at the time of accident, no fault can be attributed to deceased holding them liable to contributory negligence and denial of full compensation – Deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence in both appeals is totally unjustified and unsustainable and set aside – First deceased was a housewife aged about 30 years – Notional income of first deceased held to be Rs.5000/- per month at the time of death – Compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 assessed at Rs.7,65,000/- – If deceased had survived, her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to welfare and care of family and in upbringing of children would have only been enhanced by time – Appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to loss of consortium and future expenses already granted – Total compensation payable to appellants in first appeal assessed at Rs.11,96,000/- – Second deceased was a school going child aged about 12 years – She had a whole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations – Loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone – Emotional attachments involved to loss of child can have a devastating effect on family which needs to be visualised and understood – Grant of non-pecuniary damages for wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life is called for – Determination of just compensation shall not depend upon financial position of victim or claimant but rather on capacity and ability of deceased to provide happiness in life to claimants had she remained alive – Education would have only led to her better growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under non-pecuniary damages – Determination of a just and proper compensation to appellants with regard to deceased child, entirety of facts and circumstances of case does not persuade Court to enhance the same any further from Rs.2,95,000/- by granting any further compensation under separate head of “future prospects”. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15)

Facts of the case:

High Court by the impugned order dismissed two appeals arising from separate orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deciding two accident compensation claims. The appellants had claimed

further enhancement of compensation. Common submission in both the appeals was that deduction on ground of contributory negligence was unsustainable and unjustified.

Findings of the Court:

Deduction on account of contributory negligence has already been held by us to be unsustainable. The determination of a just and proper compensation to the appellants with regard to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case does not persuade us to enhance the same any further from Rs.2,95,000/- by granting any further compensation under the separate head of “future prospects”.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.