Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Harpreet Kaur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mohinder Yadav & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9233 of 2022 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10860 of 2020]
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in motor accident – High Court enhanced compensation awarded to petitioners from Rs. 6,60,000 with 6% interest) to Rs. 17,66,000 with 7.5% interest – Deceased, who was primarily a farmer/agriculturist, was 35 years old at the time of incident and was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his mother (4 claimants) – Even while High Court increased level of income, it did not address issue in correct perspective – Documentary evidence on record showed that deceased was cultivating 66 acres and was entitled to a third of value of produce from income of those agricultural lands – In addition, he owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated – Admitted returns were to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- – Having regard to these facts, assessment of income @ 95,000/- appears Rs. to be on lower end and insufficient – It would be appropriate that actual income should be computed @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum – Applying 40% towards future prospects, total annual income (Rs.1,50,000 + Rs.60,000) amounts to Rs.2,10,000 – With 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), annual loss of dependency (Rs.2,10,000 - Rs.52,500) would be Rs.1,57,500 – Applying multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. 25,20,000 – Filial and parental consortium have to be increased – Each of children and mother of deceased is entitled to 40,000/- – Total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs.1,20,000/- – Appellants are entitled to Rs.25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and three appellants being children and mother of deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium – Impugned judgment modified to that extent – Rate of interest and other components, directed to be payable, left undisturbed. (Paras 4, 9, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their first appeal, enhancing compensation awarded to the petitioners from Rs. 6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to Rs. 17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). Appellants’ grievance is that High Court erred in computation of compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Findings of Court:
Appellants had urged that the amount towards loss of consortium awarded – especially in favour of the fourth petitioner, is too low. Sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards spousal consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards filial and parental consortium.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the final judgment,1[Final judgment dated 18.03.2019 in FAO No. 2228/2007 (O&M) passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.] of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which partly allowed their first appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the petitioners from Rs.6,60,000 (with 6% interest) to Rs.17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). The appellants’ grievance is that the High Court erred in computation of compensation for loss of income, and failed to award any amount under the head of “loss of love and affection”, while computing the final compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter, “MV Act”).
Facts
3. On 29.09.2004, the deceased, late Jagjit Singh was returning from Chandigarh in a car with two other passengers, when a negligently driven truck collided with their car. Grievously injured, he was transferred to the hospital for medical attention, but succumbed to his injuries. The claimant-petitioners instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereafter, “MACT”) under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 23.02.2005.
4. It is an admitted fact (before both forums) that the deceased, who was primarily a farmer/agriculturist, was 35 years old at the time of the incident and was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his mother (4 claimants). The MACT concluded that Jagjit Singh had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and partly allowed the claim with a lumpsum award of Rs.6,60,000.,2[Order dated 25.01.2007 in MAC No. 2 of 23.02.2005] Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the High Court in 2007, on the ground that the MACT had only considered the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri crops which were also cultivated on the lands. The High Court by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the first appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.17,66,000 (with 7.5% interest). While all three respondents (driver, owner of truck and insurer) were held to be joint and severally liable, since the truck was duly insured by the third respondent, the latter was held liable to pay the entire assessed compensation.
5. The calculation undertaken and determination of compensation by the MACT and High Court, are summarised in tabular format below :
| Sl. No. | Head of compensation | MACT | High Court |
| 1. | Actual income | Rs.65,0003 p.a. | Rs.95,000 p.a. |
| 2. | Future prospects | Not awarded | 40% (i.e. Rs.38,000 p.a.) |
| 3. | Deduction towards personal expenses | 1/3 | 1/4 (i.e., Rs.33,250) |
| 4. | Multiplier | 15 | 16 |
| 5. | Loss of dependency annual income with the addition of future prospects, and adjusting deduction towards personal expenses x multiplier | Rs.6,45,000 | Rs.15,96,000 |
| 6. | Loss of spousal consortium | Not awarded | Rs.40,000 |
| 7. | Loss of parental and filial consortium | Not awarded | Rs.1,00,000 (consolidated) |
| 8. | Loss of estate | Not awarded | Rs.15,000 |
| 9. | Funeral expenses | Rs.15,000 | Rs.15,000 |
| Total | Rs.6,60,000 at 6% interest p.a. | Rs.17,66,000 at 7.5% interest p.a. |
3[Note: the MACT had concluded that income from agricultural land was Rs.95,000 of which 1/3rd was deducted as expenditure; Rs.65,000 was the total income. Of this, 1/3rd was further deducted as personal expenditure, to arrive at the final income/contribution to the claimants being Rs.43,000 p.a.]
Contentions
6. It was argued before this court, that the deceased was a farmer who cultivated approximately 66.95 acres (546 kanals and 13 marlas). Of this total, his wife (the first appellant) and he owned 113 kanals 9 marlas, and 24 kanals 1 marlas, respectively. The rest of the land was owned by members of his family (each of his parents, his brother, and sister-in-law). By a written agreement, s
Death in motor accident – Assessment of income of victim cannot be on lower side.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in cases ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining compensation under various heads as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant Supreme Court decis....
Point of Law : A child, who has advanced into matured adulthood, is married or otherwise in the mainstream of life, would not be entitled to compensation under that head.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
