Supreme Court of India
KUNJAN SADANA & ANR. versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS on 10 December 2019
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
A
KUNJAN SADANA & ANR.
v.
MAHESH KUMAR & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 9312 of 2019)
BDECEMBER 10, 2019
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Fatal accident – Of a 19 years old bachelor – Caused byCmotor vehicle – Claim for compensation by mother and brother ofdeceased – Compensation awarded by Tribunal and High Courtby using multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of claimant/mother– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Multiplier of 15 was wronglyapplied by adopting the age of the dependant and not the deceased– High Court was also wrong in not considering future prospectsDof the deceased – In view of the age of the deceased, an additional40% of the established income must be added while computing thecompensation – Thus, taking the multiplier of 18, considering thefuture prospects of the deceased, and granting further amountunder conventional heads, the compensation amount is furtherEenhanced.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court while enhancing thecompensation, did not consider the future prospects of thedeceased. The material on record makes it evident that theFdeceased was self-employed. As the deceased was aged 19years, an additional 40% of the established income must beadded while computing the compensation. In addition, 50% ofthe said amount has to be deducted in lieu of his personalexpenses that he would have incurred to maintain himself as aGbachelor, had he been alive. [Paras 8 and 9] [1131-B-C-E]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethiand Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
2. The High Court has rightly determined monthly salaryof the deceased at Rs. 3,918. In addition, 40% of the actualH
AB
salary income of the deceased has to be added towards the futureprospects of the deceased, as his age was less than 40 years.[Para 12] [1133-E]
3. The High Court applied the multiplier at ‘15’, as it tookthe age of the mother into consideration, and not that of thedeceased. Even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age has to betaken into account to adopt a multiplier. [Para 10] [1131-F-G]
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others (2019) 5 SCC
554- relied on.
C
4. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his grossincome must be deducted towards personal living expenses.Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards lossof dependency is Rs. 5,92,488/-(Rs.2,743 x 12 x 18 = Rs.5,92,488/-). In addition, the claimants are also entitled for a sumof Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the totalcompensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 6,62,448/-. The amount of Rs. 5,02,620/- awarded by the High Court, hasto be deducted from the aforesaid amount, therefore, the balancecompensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.1,59,868/-,which is rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The third respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the dateof the claim petition till the date of deposit. [Paras 12-14] [1132-F-H; 1133-A-B]
D
E
Case Law Reference
F
(2017) 16 SCC 680followedPara 8(2019) 5 SCC 554relied onPara 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9312of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2017 of the HighGCourt of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 479 of 2009
Rahul Mohod, Raju Sonkar, Sanjay Saini, Shekhar Aggarwal,Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Anand Vardhan Sharma, Amit Tyagi, V.K. Vashudev, KailashPrashad Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
1130SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
B3. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants challengingthe judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Delhi,in MAC Appeal No.479 of 2009 wherein the High Court has partlyallowed the appeal and consequently enhanced the amount ofcompensation from Rs 3,72,620/- to Rs 5,02,620/-. The appellants havefiled this appeal, seeking further enhancement of the compensation.C
4. The appellants are the widowed mother and the youngerbrother (a minor) of the deceased. The deceased namely, Shri YiteshSadana alias Prince, a bachelor, aged 19 years, succumbed to injuriesthat he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on18.04.2007, which was caused due to the negligence of the driver of aDbus, bearing registration No DL-1PA-4403. It is admitted that theoffending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co Ltd, thethird respondent herein, for third party risk. As mentioned above, theclaim petition was allowed in part, by the Tribunal by Award dated06.06.2009. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the appellants was partlyallowed by the High Court.E
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants thatthe deceased was aged 19 years, therefore, the multiplier applicablefor this age group is ‘18’. However, the Tribunal and the High Courthave adopted the multiplier ‘15’, on the basis of the age of the motherof the deceased. In addition, it is also submitted that the High CourtFfailed to consider the future prospects, while awarding the compensation.The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has sought to justify theimpugned judgment and order herein.
6. Summary of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal: - Sl No:DetailsAmountG1Loss of DependencyRs.3,52,620.002Funeral ExpensesRs. 5,000.003Loss of Estate,Rs.15,000.00Love & AffectionHTOTAL Rs.3,72,620.00
7. While calculating the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,52,620/-, theTribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,918/- per month.The age of the mother i.e. 42 years was considered, in order to applythe multiplier ‘15’. In addition, as the deceased was a bachelor, theTribunal has reduced 50% of his salary in lieu of his personal expenses.The High Court had enhanced the award to Rs. 5,02,610/-.
8. The High Court while enhancing the compensation, did notconsider the future prospects of the deceased. The material on recordmakes it evident that the deceased was self-employed. The ConstitutionBench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.Pranay Sethi and Others[1], has considered the issue in relation to futureprospects, while granting the compensation. It was held as under:- “59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixedsalary, an addition of 40% of the established income shouldbe the warrant where the deceased was below the age of40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was betweenthe age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased wasbetween the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as thenecessary method of computation. The established income meansthe income minus the tax component.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the instant case, as the deceased was aged 19 years, anadditional 40% of the established income must be added whilecomputation of the compensation. In addition, 50% of the said amounthas to be deducted in lieu of his personal expenses, that he would haveincurred to maintain himself as a bachelor, had he been alive.
10. Further, the High Court applied the multiplier at ‘15’, as ittook the age of the mother into consideration, and not that of thedeceased. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Royal SundaramAlliance Insurance Company Limited v. Mandala Yadagari Goudand Others[2], held that even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age hasto be taken into account to adopt a multiplier. The question forconsideration in this case was as under:
“The only legal issue canvassed before us in these matters, whichare in the nature of cross-appeals, is that in the case of a motor 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aaccident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor,whether the age of the deceased or the age of the dependentswould be taken into account for calculating the multiplier.”
This question was answered in the following terms:
“12. We are convinced that there is no need to once again takeBup this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three-JudgeBenches and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it isthe age of the deceased which has to be taken into account andnot the age of the dependents.”
11. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has alsoCawarded compensation under the conventional heads as under: - “59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, lossof estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should beRs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaidamounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every threeDyears.”
12. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly determinedmonthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 3,918. In addition, 40% of theactual salary income of the deceased has to be added towards the futureprospects of the deceased, as his age was less than 40 years. Therefore,Ethe gross income of the deceased must be calculated as:
a. Before Deducting the personal living expenses:
Rs. 3,918 + (40% of the monthly income i.eRs. 1567/-) = Rs. 5,485/- FSince the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his gross incomemust be deducted towards personal living expenses which must becalculated as:
b. Rs.5,485 – (50% of 5485) = Rs. 2,743/- Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards lossGof dependency is Rs. 5,92,488/-(Rs.2,743 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 5,92,488/-).In addition, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- underthe conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to theclaimants comes to Rs. 6,62,448/-.
13. The amount of Rs. 5,02,620/- awarded by the High Court,Hhas to be deducted from the aforesaid amount, therefore, the balance compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,59,868/-, whichis rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/-.
A
14. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. Thethird respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from thedate of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent/Binsurance company is further directed to deposit the aforesaid amountbefore the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this judgment. The first appellant is permitted towithdraw the said amount.
15. There will be no orders as to costs.
C
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal partly allowed.
D
E
F
G
H