2021 Supreme(SC) 627

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
N. JAYASREE & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6451 OF 2021(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C.) NO. 14558 OF 2019)
DECIDED ON : 25-10-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A ‘legal representative’ may also include any person who intermeddles with estate of deceased – Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir – Legal heirs are persons who are entitled to inherit surviving estate of deceased – A legal heir may also be a legal representative.
(2) Every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation.
(3) Mother-in-law is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of MV Act and is entitled to maintain claim petition.
(4) Percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application – Percentage of deduction for personal expenditure depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Claim Application – Legal Representative – Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives paramount importance to concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation – It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with object of providing relief to victims or their families – Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, endeavour should be made by Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of amount claimed by applicant/s – MV Act does not define the term ‘legal representative – A ‘legal representative’ may also include any person who intermeddles with estate of deceased – Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir – Legal heirs are persons who are entitled to inherit surviving estate of deceased – A legal heir may also be a legal representative – Term ‘legal representative’ should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean spouse, parents and children of deceased – MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying enactment and fulfil its legislative intent – In order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for claimant to establish his loss of dependency – Every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation – In present case, fourth appellant was mother-in-law of deceased – She was residing with deceased and his family members – She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance – It is not uncommon in Indian Society for mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance – Appellant no.4 herein may not be a legal heir of deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death – She is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of MV Act and is entitled to maintain claim petition. (Paras 10, 14, 16 and 21)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 173 – Death in vehicular accident – Compensation of Rs.74,50,971/- alongwith 7.5% interest awarded by Tribunal, subsequently scaled down to Rs.48,39,728/- by High Court in appeal – Percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application – It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of claimant with deceased – In some cases, father may have his own income and will not be considered as dependent – Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father – Percentage of deduction for personal expenditure depends upon facts and circumstances of each case – Deceased was working as an Assistant Professor and getting a monthly salary of Rs.83,831/- – He was a meritorious man having qualifications of M.Sc. M.Phil. – He was a first class holder in M.Sc. – He was a Selection Grade Lecturer in Mathematics and was a subject expert – It is common knowledge that teachers, especially Mathematics teachers, are employed even after their retirement in coaching centres – They may also hold private tuition classes – This would increase their income manifold after retirement – At the time of calculation of income, Court has to consider actual income of deceased and addition should be made to take into account future prospects – While evidence in a given case may indicate a different percentage of increase, standardization of the addition for future prospects should be made to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted – High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier in instant case – Deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident – Addition of 15% of his actual salary should be added towards future prospectus – Applicable multiplier is ‘11’ – Total number of dependents left behind by deceased is four – 1/4th of income (actual salary + future prospects) should be deducted towards his personal expenses – Claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement under conventional heads – Quantum of compensation enhanced to Rs.85,81,815/- alongwith 7.5% interest. (Paras 17, 22, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 1560 of 2013. Through the impugned judgment, High Court scaled down the amount of compensation payable to present appellants and thereby modified the award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. Appellants filed the aforesaid claim petition before MACT seeking compensation on account of the death of N. Venugopalan Nair in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20.06.2011. Appellant no.1 is the wife of the deceased, appellant nos. 2 and 3 are his daughters and appellant no.4 is his mother-in-law. Questions for consideration are: (I) whether High Court was justified in precluding mother-in-law of the deceased (appellant no.4) as his legal representative? (II) whether the High Court was justified in applying a split multiplier? (III) based on the findings on preceding questions, what is amount of compensation that should be awarded to the appellants?

Findings of Court:

Spousal consortium is awarded at Rs.44,000/(Forty four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/each (Total Rs.88,000/) is awarded to the two children.

Result : Appeal allowed.