Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1825
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Tara Devi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Through Its Manager & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 6212 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No(s). 12597 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate, Mr. Divvam Garg, Advocate, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The correct multiplier for calculating loss of dependency and future prospects should be determined based on the age of the deceased, and claimants are entitled to just and proper medical expenses.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680
Fact of the Case:
Bharat Bhushan suffered injuries in a road accident and eventually died due to after effects of head injuries and jaundice. His parents filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- with interest. The High Court modified the award, reducing the compensation to Rs.4,54,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
The correct multiplier for calculating loss of dependency should be 18' instead of 14', and the claimants are entitled to 40% of the income towards loss of future prospects. The court awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,64,285/-, directing the Insurance Company to deposit Rs.3,10,285/- with interest for the claimants.
Issues: Calculation of compensation for loss of dependency and future prospects, correctness of the multiplier, and adequacy of medical expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The correct multiplier for a 20-year-old deceased should be 18', and the claimants are entitled to 40% of the income towards loss of future prospects. Medical expenses should be just and proper based on the period of hospitalization and medical evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed, and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.3,10,285/- with interest for the claimants.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Application for deletion of the name of appellant no.2 from the array of the parties, as he has passed away, is allowed.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12TH October, 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC. APPEAL NO.306/2011 whereby the High Court has modified the Award of the Tribunal.
4. One Bharat Bhushan aged about 20 years suffered injuries in the road accident on 28.12.2005. The said Bharat Bhushan underwent rigorous treatment from Bhraham Shakti Hospital from 28.12.2005 till 11.01.2006. He was later treated at Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital as well as in the L.N. J.P. Hospital where it was learnt that Bharat Bhushan had developed severe jaundice and infection and eventually Bharat Bhushan died due to after effects of head injuries and jaundice on 12.06.2006.
5. The parents of the deceased Bharat Bhushan filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of their son before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,613/-. The Tribunal also added 50% of the income towards loss of future prospects. As he was a bachelor 50% of his income was deducted towards his personal expenses. Taking into account the mother's age of the deceased Bharat Bhushan, multiplier 14' was applied and a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards medical expense, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and miscellaneous expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
6. The respondent-Insurance Company challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,613/-. The High Court held that the claimants are not entitled to any amount towards loss of future prospects. The High Court applied the multiplier 14' and after deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. A total compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- was awarded after adding compensation under other heads. The appellant(s) has called in question the legality and correctness of the judgment of the High Court in this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that having regard to the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others -(2017) 16 SCC 680, the High Court ought to have awarded 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Learned counsel further contended that even choice of the multiplier was incorrect as the deceased was 20 years old at the time of his death and the correct multiplier is 18'. It was also contended that the award of compensation towards medical expenses is at lower side.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment of the High Court.
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a clerk of an advocate. He was hospitalized for a quite long time. The reason for his death is directly attributable to the accident. Both the Courts have correctly assessed the income of the deceased. However, the age of the deceased should have been taken for application of the multiplier. Therefore, the correct multiplier is 18'. In view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellant is entitled to 40% of the income towards loss of future prospects. 50% of the income
