SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. on 19 January 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 283

SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS.

v.

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2018)

JANUARY 19, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles– Motor Accident Claim – 20 year old son ofappellant died in an accident – Claims Tribunal (MACT) adoptedincome of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-p.m – It applied a multiplierof 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased andgranted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- – High Court declined tointerfere with the award of the Tribunal – On appeal, held: Tribunalgave cogent reasons for declining claim of the appellant thatdeceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month – Correct multiplierwould be 17 based on the age of the deceased and an addition of40% towards future prospects is also warranted – Loss of dependencyis Rs 8,56,800/- – Appellant also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss ofestate and a further Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses – Accordingly,appellant granted total compensation of Rs 8,86,800/- with interest@7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before MACT tillrealization.

The appellant no.1’s son who was aged 20 years, died in anaccident after a truck dashed against his motor cycle. Appellant filedclaim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunaldeclined to accept the income certificates produced by the appellant insupport of his claim that his son had a monthly earning of Rs.15,000/-and instead took the income to be Rs.8,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 11on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, it grantedcompensation of Rs.4,31,000/-. In appeal, the High Court declined tointerfere with the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for decliningto accept the income certificates which were relied upon by thefather of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf ofthe companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates

283

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ato prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establishthat the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was inreceipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, theassessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para 6][286-C-D]

B1.2 However, there is merit in the submission which hasbeen urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed toapply the correct multiplier and erred in not granting the benefitof future prospects in computing the income of the deceased andthe loss of dependency. Having regard to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the cases of PranayCSethi and Sarla Verma the correct multiplier should be 17 havingregard to the age of the deceased and an addition of 40 per centtowards future prospects would also be warranted. On this basisand since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependencywould work out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled Dto an amount of Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The award of compensationaccordingly stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellantsare allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of thepetition before the M.A.C.T. till realization. [Para 7][286-D-G]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay SethiE(2017) 13 SCALE 12; Sarla Verma v. Delhi TransportCorporation (2009) 6 SCC 21 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 –followed.

Case Law Reference

(2017) 13 SCALE 12 followedPara 7F [2009] 5 SCR 1098 followedPara 7

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 448 of

2018.

From the Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court of Judicaturefor Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCM No. 3193 of 2013.GS. N. Gupta, Ayush Gupta and Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv. for theAppellants.

Mohan Babu Agarwal, Celeste Agarwal, Chetanya Siddarth,Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advs. for theRespondents.H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal hasarisen from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan atits Jaipur bench confirming the award of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (M.A.C.T.).

2. An accident took place on 15 November 2008 when at about 9p.m. Sonu Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from MandiNeem Ka Thana to his home. A truck bearing Registration No.RJ-32-GA-0398 dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which SonuKumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The thirdrespondent is the registered owner of the motor vehicle which was insuredwith the first respondent. The appellants filed a claim for compensationbefore the Tribunal. By its order dated 16 July 2013 the Tribunal heldthat the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of thetruck. The insurer was held jointly and severally liable together with theowner and driver.

3. While assessing the claim of compensation, the Tribunal notedthat the deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years. On the income of thedeceased, the Tribunal did not accept the certificates for the months ofAugust, September and October 2008 produced by the first appellantwho is the father of the deceased in support of the case that the deceasedhad a monthly earning of Rs 15,000/-. The Tribunal indicated that thecertificates have not been duly proved. The deceased was pursuing theprofessional Chartered Accountancy course. The Tribunal adopted anincome of Rs.6,000/- per month and since the deceased was a bachelor,it deducted a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month towards personal expenses.A multiplier of 11 was applied on the basis of the age of the parents ofthe deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs3,96,000/- and after addition of conventional heads, a total compensationof Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded.

4. The appellants as well as the insurer filed the appeals beforethe High Court. By its judgment dated 30 May 2016 the High Court hasdeclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hasassailed the award of compensation by urging that:

(i) Both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in declining to accept the income certificates produced to indicate that thedeceased had a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-;

(ii) No addition on account of future prospects was made; A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A(iii) The multiplier to be adopted should have been based on theage of the deceased and not on the age of the parents; and

(iv) interest should have been awarded @ 9% p.a. instead of 6%p.a.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theBinsurer has supported the view which has been taken by the Tribunaland by the High Court and submitted that no case has been made out forinterference by this court with the concurrent findings of both the courtsbelow.

6. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to acceptCthe income certificates which were relied upon by the father of thedeceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companieswhich were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates.Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was astudent pursuing his C.A. was in receipt of a monthly income of Rs15,000/-. Hence, we are of the view that the assessment of income byDthe Tribunal cannot be faulted.

7. However, we find merit in the submission which has been urgedon behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to apply the correctmultiplier and erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects incomputing the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency.EHaving due regard to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Benchof this Court in National Insurance Company Limitedv PranaySethi[1 ]and in SarlaVermavDelhiTransport Corporation[2 ] the correctmultiplier should be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased. Anaddition of 40 per cent towards future prospects would also be warrantedin terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. On this basis andFsince the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would workout to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled to an amount ofRs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeralexpenses. The award of compensation accordingly stands quantified atRs 8,86,800/-. The appellants are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from theGdate of the filing of the petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization.

8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order asto costs.

Divya Pandey1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12H2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

Appeal allowed.