IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Amount of compensation should be “just” – Though “just” compensation can never be prefect or absolute compensation, since loss of human life can never be compensated by monetary terms.
(2) Concept of future prospects is integral component of “just compensation” and is not confined only to those in permanent government employment.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

THE APPEAL

2. The present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020¹[impugned order] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras²[High Court] in C.M.A. No. 2806 of 2013, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimants (heirs of the deceased) and modified the award dated 08.11.2012³[award], passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai⁴[MACT] while deciding a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988⁵[Act]. It is at the instance of the claimants/appellants before the High Court⁶[claimants].

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Facts, in brief, are that on 09.06.2011, D. Velu⁷[victim], aged about 37 years⁸[MACT recorded the age of the victim as 36 years. As the marginal variation in age does not materially affect the computation of compensation payable to the claimants, we deem it appropriate to consider the age of the victim as 37 years, as recorded by the High Court, for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of compensation.] as noted by the High Court, was riding a two-wheeler. A tanker lorry⁹[offending vehicle] insured with the respondent–insurance company¹⁰[insurer], which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two- wheeler and as a result thereof the victim died instantly.

4. The claimants, viz. the widow of the victim, their two minor children and the victim’s parents lodged a claim petition¹¹[M.C.O.P. No. 4026 of 2011] before the MACT, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of loss of dependency and other conventional heads. It was claimed that the victim, employed as a driver at the material time, was earning a regular monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and since the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, they were entitled to “just compensation”. Before the MACT, the insurer contested the claim, inter alia, disputing negligence, the income of the victim, and the quantum of compensation claimed.

5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the MACT, by its award, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle; however, in view of lack of supporting documentary evidence, the victim’s monthly salary was reckoned as Rs. 6,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation payable was assessed as follows: the victim’s monthly income was taken at Rs. 6,000/-; and, after deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, i.e., Rs. 1,500/-, the notional monthly contribution to the family was calculated at Rs. 4,500/-; then, applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income was computed at Rs. 8,64,000/- (Rs. 4,500 × 12 × 16). In addition, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards transport charges; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow of the victim; Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents and children at Rs. 10,000/- each; and Rs. 1,000/- towards damages. No amount was awarded under the head of loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation payable was determined at Rs. 9,37,000/- with interest @7.5%.

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 173 of the Act.

7. The High Court, by the impugned order, affirmed the finding on negligence; however, it modified the award by enhancing the quantum of compensation payable by the insurer from Rs. 9,37,000/- to Rs. 10,51,000/-. In computing the quantum of compensation payable, the High Court reckoned the monthly salary of the victim as Rs. 7,000/-. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment and with proportionate cost. The following is the break-up of compensation granted by the High Court: