2025 INSC 366
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. AND HON’BLE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.)
SUNITA
Petitioner
VERSUS
VINOD SINGH
Respondent
Civil Appeal No. OF 2025 [@ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.1114 OF 2019]-Decided on 19-03-2025
Compensation,
MACT
Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Section 166 – MACT – Death case – Monthly income – Multiplier - Loss of future
prospects - Held that the amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly
income being Rs.5,819/- as against the
claim of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the lower side as
the total earning of the deceased from family pension itself ought to have been
considered which itself would come to Rs.5,137/- to which the notional wages as
a home maker had to be added, which we find is reasonable as has been taken by
the High Court at Rs.2,500/- - Thus, the monthly income would come to
Rs.7,637/-, which is round off at
Rs.7,000/- - There is sufficient
indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem
Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased - In the
absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to
accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report and inclined to
grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years - With
regard to the loss of love and affection there being five claimants the amount
shall be [Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- - Under the head of
funeral expenses and transportation also, the amount is increased from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- - Loss of
future prospects assessed at 25%, bearing in mind the dicta in Pranay
Sethi – Interest granted by the High Court at 7.5% per annum from the date
of the petition as the incident is of the year 2003 maintained - Though, the
Courts below have taken the deduction for personal expenses to be 1/5th,
however, having regard to the law laid down in Sarla
Verma (supra) we take the same to be 1/4th – Compensation of
Rs.5,96,761/- awarded by High Court
enhanced to Rs. 13,82,500/-
(Para
9 to 17)
JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah,
J. :- Leave granted.
2.
The present appeal mounts a challenge to the Final Judgment and Order dated
24.05.2018 in FAO No.3026/2016 (O&M) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’),
whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) was enhanced from Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) to Rs.5,96,761/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty One) and interest was
enhanced from 7% per annum to 7.5% per annum. After the matter traversed to
this Court, it was referred to the Special Lok Adalat held in this Court on
31.07.2024, but the parties concerned could not reach an agreement.
FACTUAL
PREMISE:
3.
Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellants is that on 07.02.2003 at
around 07:00 a.m., Smt. Tarawati, was going on foot to the bus stand of Village
Sanjarwas Phogat, when the offending truck bearing Registration No.HR-46A-1118
being driven by the respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and
crushed her to death. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 45
years at the time of her death and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), inclusive of income from
agriculture and family pension. The appellants filed a claim petition bearing
MVA Petition No.30 of 2003 claiming a total of Rs.15,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). The MACT vide Award/Order dated 31.08.2015 awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,31,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty) along with interest at the rate of 7%
per annum in the following manner:
|
S.
No. |
Head
of Compensation |
Amount |
|
1
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.5,100/- |
|
2 |
Multiplier |
8 |
|
3 |
Deduction
for personal expenses |
1/5th |
|
4
|
Loss
of dependency |
Rs.3,91,680/- |
|
5
|
Expenses
for funeral and transportation |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
6
|
Loss
of love and affection |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
7
|
Loss
of care and guidance of minors |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
8
|
Total
|
Rs.4,31,680/- |
4.
Aggrieved by the MACT’s Award, the appellants approached the High Court by filing
First Appeal from Order No.3026 of 2016 (O&M). The High Court, vide the
Impugned Order, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by
Rs.1,65,081/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty- Five Thousand Eighty-One). The High Court
computed and granted compensation under various heads as under:
|
S.
No. |
Head
of Compensation |
Amount |
|
1
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.5,819/- |
|
2 |
Multiplier |
9
|
|
3
|
Deduction
for personal expenses |
1/5th(only
on family pension) |
|
4
|
Loss
of dependency |
Rs.5,56,761/- |
|
5
|
Expenses
for funeral and transportation |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
6
|
Loss
of love and affection |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
7
|
Loss
of care and guidance of minors |
Rs.10,000/- |
|
8
|
Total
|
Rs.5,96,761/- |
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
5.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation awarded by the
High Court is inadequate and ought to be modified. It was put forth that the
age of the deceased has been taken as 60 years purely on conjecture, presuming
that as per societal norms, the wife would be two years younger to her husband.
This flawed reasoning has been upheld by the High Court in the Impugned Order,
inter alia, assuming the age of claimant no.1 as 42 years. It was argued that
the aforesaid reasoning is incorrect inasmuch as the age of claimant no.1 was
recorded as 30 years in the claim petition and the Post-Mortem Report dated
07.02.2003 clearly records the age of the deceased as being 45 years.
6.
It was further contended that the High Court erred in computing the income of
the deceased. The total family pension of the deceased was Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Seven) which
includes family pension of Rs.3,319/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred
Nineteen), Dearness Allowance of Rs.1,693/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred
and Ninety-Three) and medical allowance of Rs.125/- (Rupees One Hundred and
Twenty-Five), which is substantiated by the bank account statement(s) of the
deceased. Learned counsel relied upon Rajendra Singh v National Insurance
Company Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 256 and argued that the notional income alone of the
deceased housewife ought to have been taken as Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand).
7.
It was further argued that High Court did not award the compensation under the
various heads in terms of the decision in National Insurance Company
Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. As per learned counsel, a total of
Rs.18,74,630/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy-Four
Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty) ought to be granted in compensation. Hence,
prayer was made to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.
SUBMISSIONS
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY:
8.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company argued
that the High Court applied its mind judiciously and thoughtfully to every
aspect of the case and every observation in the Impugned Order is based on
evidence. The High Court has come to an inescapable conclusion that the
appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,96,761/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-One) only and
nothing more than that. This indeed is based on the guidelines of the Courts,
as laid down from time to time, and there is no justification for claiming more
compensation under such circumstances. It was argued that sympathies cannot
override the applicable law and the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable
overall. Prayer was made to dismiss the appeal.
ANALYSIS,
REASONING & CONCLUSION:
9.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
At the outset, we note that service to respondents no.1 and 2 was dispensed
with by the Order dated 21.10.2019 by the Judge-in-Chambers in view of the
position that the said two respondents had not appeared either before the MACT
or the High Court.
10.
The issue, in our opinion, has to be seen in a narrow compass related to the
monthly income and multiplier within the parameters of the formula fixed
in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as also
with regard to the loss of love and affection, loss of care and guidance to
minor and deduction for personal expenses.
11.
The amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly income being Rs.5,819/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen) as against the claim of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) appears to be on the lower side as the total
earning of the deceased from family pension itself ought to have been
considered which itself would come to Rs.5,137/- (Rupees Five Thousand One
Hundred and Thirty-Seven) to which the notional wages as a home maker had to be
added, which we find is reasonable as has been taken by the High Court at
Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred). Thus, the monthly income would
come to Rs.7,637/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Six Hundred
and Thirty- Seven), which we are inclined to round off at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees
Seven Thousand). Coming to the multiplier factor which is dependent on the age,
there is sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per
the Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the
deceased. The purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the
claimant and the deceased is erroneous for the reason that when the claim was
filed, appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of 15 years
between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law cannot be said to be totally
devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at
the time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25 to 30
years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s. Moreover, in the absence
of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept
the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are inclined to
grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years. With
regard to the loss of love and affection, Pranay Sethi (supra) grants
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) per head with escalation of 10% every three
years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 to include spousal, parental,
and filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the amount shall be
[Rs.48,000/- x 5] which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand) payable under the head of loss of love and
affection.
12.
We have taken the afore-view based on the material before the Court and what
has come during trial as also the formula approved and invoked as per the
earlier precedents of this Court, including those referred to hereinbefore.
Under the head of funeral expenses and transportation also, the amount is
increased from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). No payment shall be made under the head
of loss of care and guidance of minors as we factored in the same under the
head of loss of love and affection with regard to all claimants. The MACT and
so also the High Court, however, have not borne in mind the aspect qua loss of
future prospects.
13. In Rajendra
Singh (supra), the Court held:
‘9. The first deceased
was a housewife aged about 30 years. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [Lata
Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197], this Court had observed that
considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest
estimation, the income of a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years
who were active in life should be assessed at Rs 36,000 p.a. A distinction was
also drawn with regard to elderly ladies in the age group of 62 to 72 who would
be more adept in discharge of housewife duties by age and experience, and the
value of services rendered by them has been taken at Rs 20,000 p.a.
10. In Arun
Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Arun Kumar Agrawal v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664: (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1313], the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at
Rs 5000 per month, but without any rationale or reasoning concluded that she
was a non-earning member and reduced the same to Rs 2500, which was affirmed
[Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., FAFO No. 2408 of 2003,
order dated 30-4-2004 (All)] by the High Court. Disapproving the same and restoring
the assessed income, this Court observed at paras 26 and 27 as follows : (SCC pp. 237-38)
“26. In India the
courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is
invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services
rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her
husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services
rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the
constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is
employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours.
She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including
cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and
provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or
maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes
and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute
for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.
27. It is not possible
to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to
the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of
compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the
services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term “services” is
required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into
account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her
children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to
adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by
the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the
ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some
of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.”
11. The notional
income of the first deceased is therefore held to be Rs 5000 per month at the
time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs
15,000 towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs 7,65,000. If the deceased had survived, in view of
observations in Lata Wadhwa [Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC
197], her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the
welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have
only been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants
shall be entitled to future prospects @ 40% in addition to the loss of
consortium and future expenses already granted. We therefore assess the total
compensation payable to the appellants in the first appeal at Rs 11,96,000.’
(emphasis supplied)
14.
We express our respectful agreement with Rajendra Singh (supra) and,
accordingly, assess loss of future prospects at 25%, bearing in mind the dicta
in Pranay Sethi (supra). In undertaking the exercise of
computation of compensation, we have verily reminded ourselves
that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare
legislation and it is our duty to award ‘just compensation’ [refer Ningamma
v United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710].
15.
We maintain the interest granted by the High Court at 7.5% per annum from the
date of the petition as the incident is of the year 2003. Though, the Courts
below have taken the deduction for personal expenses to be 1/5th, however,
having regard to the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) we
take the same to be 1/4th and quantify the compensation as per the chart below:
|
S.
No. |
Head
of Compensation |
Amount |
|
1
|
Monthly
Income |
Rs.7,000/- |
|
2
|
Future
Prospects @ 25% |
Rs.1,750/- |
|
3
|
Deduction
for Personal Expenses |
1/4th |
|
4 |
Multiplier |
14 |
|
5 |
Loss
of dependency |
Rs.11,02,500/- |
|
6
|
Expenses
for funeral and transportation |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
7
|
Loss
of love and affection |
Rs.2,40,000/- |
|
8
|
Loss
of estate |
Rs.20,000/- |
|
9
|
Total
|
Rs.13,82,500/- |
16.
Accordingly, the amount be paid with 7.5% interest per
annum from the date of filing of the claim till date of realization within 2
months from today, if already not paid. We further clarify that the rate
of interest would be pro rata if any amount has been paid for the period for
which such interest is to be paid, taking into consideration the date on which
such interim or part-payment has been made by the respondent no.3 earlier to the
claimants concerned.
17.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above-mentioned terms. The Impugned
Order is set aside.
18.
No order as to costs.
------