(B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.)
Premwati and Others _____________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Iqbal and Others ________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No./2024 (@SLP(C) No. 11751/2023), decided on November 29, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 264 of 2018, the present civil appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.08.2015, Sh. Ganpat Singh, who was the son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein, met with a fatal accident while going on a motor-cycle on the Agra-Aligarh Highway. The motor-cycle of Sh. Ganpat Singh collided with a Fortuner car being driven negligently by the respondent No. 1 driver and resultantly, Sh. Ganpat Singh died on the spot. The said Fortuner car was owned by respondent No. 2 herein and was insured with the respondent No. 3 – insurance company. The deceased was around 27 years-old at the time of the accident and was a teacher by profession. He is survived by his parents, who are appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, and by three siblings, who are appellants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 herein. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death and is therefore not survived by any spouse or children. The information about the incident was given to the police the next morning and Case Crime No. 486 of 2015 was registered at PS Hathras Gate, District Hathras against the respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
4. The appellants herein, being the parents and siblings of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being Motor Accident Petition No. 468 of 2015, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr (“MACT”). The appellants claimed a compensation amount of Rs. 1,31,72,000/- (Rupees One Crore, Thirty-one Lakhs and Seventy-two Thousand only) along with 9% annual interest.
5. The MACT, vide its judgment dated 24.10.2017, partially allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants herein and held them to be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,39,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Thirty-nine Thousand only), along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The said compensation was to be payable by the respondent No. 3 – insurance company. Further, the MACT held only appellant Nos. 1 and 2 to be entitled to receive the compensation, being the parents of the deceased. The other appellants, being the siblings of the deceased, were held to be not dependent on the deceased and therefore were held to be not entitled to receive any compensation amount.
6. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount granted by the MACT, the appellants preferred an appeal, being First Appeal from Order No. 264 of 2018, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellants sought an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT.
7. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 22.02.2022, partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants and thereby enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 23,65,000/- (Rupees Twenty-three Lakhs, Sixty-five Thousand only), along with interest at an increased rate of 7.5% per annum. The High Court considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month, instead of Rs. 10,000/- that was construed by the MACT while computing the compensation. The High Court also awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. Respondent No. 3 was given a time of 12 weeks to deposit the said amount, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after deducting the already deposited amount.
8. Being further aggrieved by the low quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court, the appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation in the present civil appeal.
9. The appellants have contended that the MACT and the High Court have failed to consider that the deceased was only 27 years old at the time of his death and was the sole earning member in the family. It was contended that the courts below also did not consider the fact that the deceased was about to get appointed as a teacher in a government school in Delhi and he was expected to receive a salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month and thus the same salary should be considered while computing the amount of compensation. That other factors like education of the dependents, future prospects and nature of job, and also the salaries being earned by employees of the private companies in the contemporary times should also be taken into account.
10. Per contra, respondent No. 3 has contended that the argument of the appellants that the deceased was about to be appointed in a government school is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. That as per the material on record, the deceased had only applied for the new job but there is no document which suggests that the deceased had secured the said job. Further, it is contended that future prospects have been taken into account by the High Court while computing the compensation. Thus, respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned order and has sought the dismissal of the present appeal.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, considered the submissions advanced at the bar and perused the material on record.
12. We dispose of this appeal by reassessing the compensation in the following terms:
a) Loss of dependency to be calculated by treating monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-, plus 50% towards future prospects, which is Rs. 22,500/- per month.
b) Having regard to the fact that there are five claimants who are stated to be dependents on the deceased; instead of deduction of half the income towards personal expenses, we restrict it to only one-third.
c) Loss of estate is to be taken as Rs. 15,000/-, plus 10% increase after every three years from the date of judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, till date, which is Rs. 18,150/-.
d) Funeral expenses to be taken as Rs. 15,000/-, plus 10% increase after every three years from the date of judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, till date, which is Rs. 18,150/-.
e) Loss of love and affection to be taken as Rs. 15,000/-;
f) Loss of consortium for parents of the deceased to be taken as Rs. 40,000/- each; and loss of filial consortium for the three siblings of the deceased to be taken as Rs. 20,000/- each; the aggregate of which would amount to Rs. 1,40,000/- towards the loss of consortium.
g) The enhanced compensation granted as per the aforementioned terms shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the actual realization of the amount.
13. The aforesaid reassessment has been made on the basis of the following three judgments of this court:
a) Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121
b) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680
c) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130
14. The final computation as per the modified calculation is as follows:
| S. No. | Particulars | Amount (in Rs.) | |
| 1. | Monthly income of the deceased | 15,000 | |
| 2. | Add: Loss of future prospects (at 50% of Rs. 15,000) | 7,500 | |
| MONTHLY INCOME FOR COMPUTATION (1 + 2) | 22,500 | ||
| 3. | Annual income of the deceased (Rs. 22,500 × 12) | 2,70,000 | |
| 4. | Less: Personal expenses (1/3rd of annual income) | (90,000) | |
| MULTIPLICAND | 1,80,000 | ||
| 5. | Loss of dependency (Mutltiplicand × 17) | 30,60,000 | |
| [The multiplier of 17 has been chosen considering the age of the deceased as 27 years] | |||
| 6. | Loss of estate | 15,000 | |
| Add: 10% increase after every three years | 3,150 | 18,150 | |
| 7. | Funeral Expenses | 15,000 | |
| Add: 10% increase after every three years | 3,150 | 18,150 | |
| 8. | Loss of love and affection | 15,000 | |
| 9. | Loss of consortium towards parents (at Rs. 40,000/- each) | 80,000 | |
| 10. | Loss of consortium towards the three siblings (at Rs. 20,000/- each) | 60,000 | |
| TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION (5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10) | 32,51,300 | ||
| 11. | Less: Amount granted by High Court | (23,65,000) | |
| DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID | 8,86,300 |
15. Therefore, the total compensation for the appellants is computed at Rs. 32,51,300/- (Rupees Thirty-two Lakhs, Fifty-one Thousand and Three Hundred only), instead of Rs. 23,65,000/- that was granted by the High Court by the impugned order.
16. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 32,51,300/- granted by this court. The amount of Rs. 23,65,000/- granted by the High Court may be excluded if already paid. The differential amount of compensation, which is after reducing the amount granted by the High Court, would be Rs. 8,86,300/- (Rupees eight lakhs, eighty-six thousand and three hundred only), plus interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the actual realization of the claim amount, shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr.
17. This appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
———
