Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 2212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Rani Kaur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal NO. 6105 OF 2019 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO.5107 OF 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2019
Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Pathak, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Jain, Advocate, Ms. Isha Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. O.P. Chitkara, Advocate, Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent
Interpretation of future prospects under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the computation of additional compensation based on the deceased's income.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Interpretation of future prospects under Section 166
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Gurdial Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was reduced by the High Court. The issue revolved around the computation of future prospects and evidence of the deceased's income.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the compensation awarded by the MACT to be paid to the claimants, with a modification that 40% instead of 50% has to be added to the monthly income while paying the compensation.
Issues: Interpretation of future prospects under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the evidence required to prove the income of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MACT was right in adding future prospects to the deceased's income, even in the absence of specific evidence, and that 40% should be added instead of 50% as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of in favor of the claimants, with the direction to modify the compensation calculation by adding 40% to the monthly income of the deceased.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants preferred a claim seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the respondent Insurance Company. The appellants are the widow and the other family members of Gurdial Singh, aged 26 years, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 3 rd September, 2016. By a judgment dated 06 th November, 2013 (modified order dated 13.12.2013), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation of Rs.12,83,544/- @ 7.5% interest per annum. The MACT computed the income of Gurdial Singh who was a driver at Rs.3,736/- per month. 50% of his monthly salary was added towards future prospects. The High Court reduced the compensation from Rs.12,83,544/- to Rs.10,24,000/- while considering the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The High Court did not award any amount towards future prospects. In National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi, (2017(16) SCC 680, this Court held that the claimants are entitled to an addition of40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the claimants did not produce any evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased. However, taking into account the fact that deceased had a driving license and even computing his monthly income on the basis of minimum wage, we are of the considered opinion that the MACT was right in adding the future prospects. The computation of future prospects @ 50% is, in any event, contrary to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).
4. We set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the compensation as awarded by the MACT to be paid to the claimants with a modification that instead of 50% in addition to the monthly income of the deceased, 40% has to be added to the monthly income while paying the compensation.
5. The appeal stands disposed of.
