SURESHCHANDRA BAGMAL DOSHI & ANR. versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. on 18 April 2018

870

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

ASURESHCHANDRA BAGMAL DOSHI & ANR.

v.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5206 of 2016)

B

APRIL 18, 2018

[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Award ofcompensation – Future income rise – Computation of – Death ofvictim-25 year old widow, in a motor accident – Victim was a qualifiedCengineer, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6,273/- – Claim petition byparents – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,71,000/- as compensationwherein added 100 per cent towards future rise in income, deducted1/3[rd] towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 16 – Inappeal, the High Court took future rise in income as 50 per cent,Ddeducted 50 per cent towards personal expenses, applied multiplierof 18 and awarded Rs. 10,72,360/- – On appeal, held: Standardizedpercentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led –Assessment of the tribunal is based on the evidence led – On facts,the tribunal justified in giving 100 per cent increase and taking thefuture prospects at Rs.12,000 per month – As regards, the percentageEof deduction, considering that the deceased survived by her parents,50 per cent amount be deducted as personal and living expenses ofthe deceased when the deceased is a widow – Thus, the High Courtwas justified in increasing the percentage of personal expenses tothe extent of 50 per cent – After deducting 50 per cent of the amountFtowards personal expenses and adding 100 per cent towards futurerise in income, to the figure of Rs.6,273 per month, multiplier of 18is applied, amounting to Rs.13,54,968 – Amount under conventionalheads would be Rs.70,000, totaling to around Rs.14,25,000/- –Award of interest would continue @ 12 % – Litigation being of twodecades, Rs.25,000 awarded as costs.

G

Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance CompanyLimited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. AIR 2017 SC 5157 –referred to.

H

Case Law Reference

(2009) 6 SCC 121referred toPara 6AIR 2017 SC 5157referred toPara 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5206of 2016.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2015 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3876 of 2007.

Mehal S. Shah, Sr. Adv., Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Advs. for theAppellants.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Hetu Arora Sethi, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Fate can be cruel. This is atragic case where the only daughter of a lawyer husband and a doctorwife, who got married early and unfortunately became a widow also ata young age, died in a vehicular accident, which took place on 16.8.1998.The claim of the parents (appellants herein) in respect of this unfortunatedemise forms the subject matter of the present appeal.

2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, as thoseare not really liable to be examined in view of the limited controversybefore us. The claim was laid on the basis that the deceased daughterwas working in the company of original respondent No.4 as anInternational Internal Sales Engineer at a monthly salary of Rs.6,273.She had a B.E. (Civil) qualification. Her husband, after an early marriage,had unfortunately passed away in the year 1996 and since then she wasliving with her parents, the claimants. The deceased had a quick successfulprogression in her career from the initial post of a Secretary, and theclaim was based on the prospective earning of the deceased of morethan Rs.25,000 per month.

3. We may note that qua the accident, the driver of the vehicle inwhich the deceased daughter was travelling died, and there wasapportionment of contributory negligence to the extent of 80 per centqua the truck driver, and 20 per cent qua the Tata Sierra, the two vehicles,which met with the accident. However, this would not affect the claimqua the parents before us.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A4. There is no dispute that the assessed income of the deceasedat the time of the accident was Rs.6,273 per month. This is a finding offact, both by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Tribunal, howeveradded approximately 100 per cent towards future rise in income andconsidered the prospective income at Rs.12,000 per month, and afterdeducting 1/3[rd] towards personal expenses of deceased, the TribunalBassessed the loss of dependency or the future economic loss at Rs.8,000per month and thereafter a multiplier of 16 was applied. The Tribunal,thus, awarded a sum of Rs.15,36,000 towards loss of dependency benefit;Rs.15,000 towards conventional amount under the head loss of estate;Rs.15,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000 towardsCfuneral expenses totaling to Rs.15,71,000 in terms of an award dated29.3.2007. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 12 percent per annum on the award amount from the date of application tillrealization.

5. Both the sides were aggrieved by the assessment of this claimDand filed appeals before the High Court, which modified the award ofthe Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 9.2.2015, which is subjectmatter of the present appeal.

6. The High Court declined to accept the future income rise as100 per cent and took the same as 50 per cent in view of the judgment ofEthis Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr.[1] The High Court, considering that the claimants were the parentsof the deceased, deducted 50 per cent towards personal expenses insteadof 1/3[rd] of the amount, as per the Tribunal. In fact, a reading of the ordershows that these were the only two pleas advanced on behalf of theinsurance company on which the appeal of the insurance companyFsucceeded.

7. The High Court, however, fixed the multiplier at 18 instead of16 as fixed by the Tribunal, as the deceased was aged about 25 years,and that would have been the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma[2].The High Court also examined the two other pleas made on behalf ofGthe claimants, i.e., that the award of Rs.15,000 for loss of estate andRs.15,000 for loss of love and affection was inadequate.

8. In view of what the High Court held as aforesaid, the amountwas computed at Rs.10,72,360 with a sum of Rs.50,000 being awarded 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121H 2 supra under the head of loss of estate as well as loss of love and affectioninstead of Rs.30,000 as awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.5,000 towardsfuneral expenses. The interest awarded was also upheld.

9. The claimants alone are the appellants before us.

10. On having heard the learned counsel for the parties and havingexamined the record, we may note that the parties are ad idem on theassessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.6,273 per month. Thequestion, thus, is whether the Tribunal was right in increasing the amountfor future rise in income by 100 per cent, or the High Court was withinits right to reduce the said amount to 50 per cent.

11. We have the benefit of the Constitution Bench judgment ofthis Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi& Ors.[3]. While examining the observations in Sarla Verma[4], theConstitution Bench gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50 per cent toactual salary of the deceased towards future prospects where thedeceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as inthe present case. However, learned counsel for the appellant has broughtto our notice a recent order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.22134/2016 and other connected matters dated 22.11.2017 wherein while takingnote of the views expressed by National Insurance Company Limited[5],it has been observed that the percentage for calculating future rise inincome is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level wherethe assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of theTribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standardpercentage. Learned counsel, thus, submitted in the context of theevidence led in the present case that the two certificates dated 16.10.1998and 8.7.2005 were proved in terms whereof the deceased’s futureprospects would have entitled her to a gross salary in the range ofRs.14,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month. No doubt the second certificate isdated 8.7.2005, after a lapse of 7 years from the first certificate, butthen that would be a more realistic estimate of what a person holdingthat post would be earning at that stage of time. There is no rebuttalevidence led by the insurance company and we see no reason to doubtthese certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on theevidence led in the present case. As noticed above, the standardizedpercentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led.

3 AIR 2017 SC 5157

4 supra

5 supra

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A12. We are, thus, of the view that looking into the conspectus ofthe aforesaid facts and the legal position, the Tribunal was justified ingiving a 100 per cent increase and taking the future prospects at Rs.12,000per month.

13. The second aspect relates to the percentage of deduction. Itreally could not be seriously disputed before us that considering that theBdeceased is survived by the two parents, 50 per cent amount be deductedas personal and living expenses of the deceased when the deceased isunmarried or widowed, as in the present case in view of the judgment inNational Insurance Company Limited[6], which has affirmed the positionin Sarla Verma[7]. Thus, the High Court was justified in increasing theCpercentage of personal expenses to the extent of 50 per cent and not 1/3[rd] as held by the Tribunal.

14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads, inNational Insurance Company Limited[8], it has been standardized atRs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium (in the present case loss of love and affection) and Rs.15,000 towards funeralDexpenses. The total amount, thus, would be Rs.70,000, which as per thesaid judgment is capable of being enhanced @ 10 per cent in the span ofevery three years. However, we are still within the window of threeyears.

15. The result of the aforesaid is that after deducting 50 per centEof the amount towards personal expenses and adding 100 per cent towardsfuture rise in income, we would be back at the figure of Rs.6,273 permonth to which a multiplier of 18 has to be applied. The amount wouldcome to Rs.13,54,968. The amount under the conventional heads wouldbe Rs.70,000, i.e., totaling to Rs.14,24,968 rounded off at Rs.14,25,000.The award of interest would continue @ 12 per cent as awarded by theFTribunal.

16. We may also notice the litigation of two decades, which theappellants have had to go through before different forums to claim theamounts due to them and we are of the view that they should be heldentitled to costs throughout, which we assess at Rs.25,000.G17. We, thus, allow the appeal in the aforesaid terms with costsassessed as aforesaid.

H

Nidhi Jain

6 supra

7 supra

8 supra

Appeal allowed.