IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Future prospects are integral component of just compensation.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This instant Appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2017 in F.A.O. No. 5948 of 2013 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The Appellants-claimants who are respectively the wife and children of the victim of a motor vehicle accident are dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment and order and they filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows:

On 11.08.2009, the deceased-Sudesh Kumar was amongst the passengers in a bus bearing Registration No. JK-01Y-0432 of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, driven by the deceased husband of the first Respondent, on its trip from Jammu to Srinagar. By about 13:20 hrs the bus fell into river Chenab and Shri Sudesh Kumar drowned in the river. The Appellants alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving and the consequential loss of control of the bus. He was working as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (for short ‘the RPF’) and was then aged 32 years. Claiming the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- the Appellants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) seeking a total compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs, under different heads.

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’) at Rewari found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Mohd. Rasid, the deceased husband of the first Respondent. On the principle of vicarious liability, the 4th Respondent-State Road Transport Corporation the owner of the bus was held jointly and severely liable with Mohd. Rasid, the husband of first Respondent, to satisfy the award, quantified as Rs. 17,73,704/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.

5. The inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal was assailed by the Appellants herein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in F.A.O. No. 5948 of 2018. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court reassessed the compensation and granted an additional compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/-. In fact, the total compensation was re-assessed by the High Court as Rs. 20,68,704/- and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was deducted by the High Court to arrive at the said figure of Rs. 2,95,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation viz. Rs. 2,95,000/- was ordered to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. The Appellants still feel that they are deprived of just compensation to be awarded under Section 168 of the MV Act. Hence, the captioned Appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4, the Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation.

7. According to the Appellants the High Court had erred in not adhering to what are recorded as conclusions in the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) inasmuch as the future prospects of the deceased was not taken into account while quantifying the amount payable under the ‘loss of dependency’ and also in deciding the other heads of compensation payable. It is contended that no amount whatsoever was granted under the head ‘loss of estate’ and towards ‘funeral expenses’. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 would contend that the High Court, in the Appeal, has granted just compensation contemplated under Section 166 of the MV Act and, therefore, no further enhancement of compensation is warranted. It is further contended that compensation under the head ‘loss of love a