Supreme Court of India
SHIV KUMAR & ORS versus GAINDA LAL & ORS. on 21 October 2022
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
SHIV KUMAR & ORS.
A
v.
GAINDA LAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7629 of 2022)
BOCTOBER 21, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Fatal accident – Compensation –Enhancement of – Death of housewife aged 25 years in a vehicularaccident – Award of compensation of Rs. 19,12,200/- with interestCunder different heads by the tribunal, enhanced to Rs.29,34,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent by the High Court – Onappeal, held: Deceased was a housewife aged 25 years and wastaking tuition, the High Court ought to have considered her incomeat least Rs 7,500/- – High Court did not consider the future aspectDand while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income isto be added towards future prospects – Thus, claimants entitled toRs 1 lakh instead of Rs. 50,000 for loss of foetus, Rs.40,000/- eachtowards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection – Claimantentitled to compensation at Rs.32,82,000/- with interest at the rateof 7.5 % per annum – Order passed by the High Court modified.E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7629of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 07.03.2019 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 854 of 2014.
F
Vikas Kumar, Manish Paliwal, Ms. Megha Yadav, Ms. HimanshiKaushik, M/s Corporate Legal Partners, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GM. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.854 of 2014, the originalclaimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount ofHcompensation.
2. That the wife of the appellant no.1 died in a vehicular accident.At the relevant time, the deceased was aged 25 years and was ahousewife. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awardedRs.19,12,200/- with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards thecompensation under different heads. The Learned Tribunal awardedthe loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/- considering the income of thedeceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. As at the relevant time the deceasedwas pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/- for foetus.Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/- under different heads:
2.1 In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by theimpugned judgment and order the High Court has enhanced the amountof compensation at Rs.29,34,000/- under different heads:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
BC
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferredthe present appeal.
D3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-originalclaimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committeda serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the incomeof the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only. It is submitted that eventhe minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more thanRs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awardingEthe loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken intoconsideration at all.
3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awardingRs.50,000/- towards foetus. It is submitted that the claimants shall beentitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium or lossFof love and affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of thecontesting respondents – Insurance Company has submitted that in thefacts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when thedeceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High CourtGhas committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency consideringthe income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. However,has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the lossof dependency considering future prospects.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of theHrespective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contributionof the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doingthe tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to haveconsidered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/- per month.The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per thesettled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% ofthe income is required to be added towards future prospects.
5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to asum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the HighCourt for loss of foetus.
5.2 The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitledto Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium or loss of love andaffection.
5.3 To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is required to be modified.
6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, presentappeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants - originalclaimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,82,000/- with interestat the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be noorder as to costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H