BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER AND ORS versus SIDABHA PETHABHA MANKE AND ORS on 6 April 2018

1052

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

ABHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER AND ORS

v.

SIDABHA PETHABHA MANKE AND ORS

(Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2018)

APRIL 5, 2018* and APRIL 6, 2018**

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Death due to motoraccident – Tribunal allowed compensation claim of appellants inthe amount of Rs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. – High CourtCallowed an additional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head ofloss of life, expenses and consortium but did not allow for futureprospects and also reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to9% p.a. – On appeal, held: In view of the decision of ConstitutionBench in Pranay Sethi, an addition of 25% is warranted, on accountDof future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased (41years) – Quantum of compensation shall stand enhanced toRs.12,67,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claimpetition.

Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died when the jeep Ethat he was travelling in was hit by a truck driven by the firstrespondent. MACT allowed the claim in the amount ofRs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., as against the claim ofappellants for Rs.13 lakhs. In appeal, High Court allowed anadditional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of loss of life,expenses and consortium but reduced the rate of interest fromF12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court had computed the total incomeof the deceased at Rs 91,800/- (Rs 55,000/- being the incomeGfrom agriculture and Rs 36,800/- being the income from salary).In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi,an addition of 25% is warranted, on account of future prospectshaving regard to the age of the deceased (41 years). The totalincome, after accounting for future prospects at 25% would work* Judgment delivered on 05.04.2018H** Corrigendum dated 06.04.2018

out to Rs 1,14,000/- per annum. An amount of one fourth wouldhave to be reduced on account of personal expenses. The netincome would work out to Rs 85,500/-. Applying a multiplier of14, the total compensation would work out to Rs 11,97,000/-.Adding a further amount of Rs 70,000/- under conventional headsas stipulated in the judgment in Pranay Sethi, the totalcompensation payable would work out to Rs 12,67,000/-. Thereis no reason to intefere with the award of interest at 9% p.a. bythe High Court. The quantum of compensation shall standenhanced to Rs 12,67,000/- on which interest shall be payable at9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. [Paras 5-7][1054-G-H; 1055-A-C]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 13 SCALE 12 – followed.

Case Law Reference

(2017) 13 SCALE 12followedPara 4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2697of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2016 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 5010 of 1999.

Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Mrs. Dhurita PurvishMalkan, Ms. Rumi Chand, Bhaskar Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arisesfrom a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 15 March 2016, in afirst appeal from the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT), Jamnagar.

2. The appellants are heirs and legal representatives ofNayabhaMapbha Ker who died as a result of a motor accident on 18July 1993. He was travelling in a jeep bearing Registration No GBI-7896 which was being driven by the fourth respondent towards Mithapur.At about 3.00 am the first respondent who was driving a truck bearingRegistration No.GJ-10-T-747, came from the opposite direction anddashed against the jeep. Nayabha was seriously injured and died duringthe course of the accident. His heirs filed a claim petition under Section A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Jamnagar seekingcompensation in the amount of Rs 13 lakhs. By its award dated 19 July1999 the Tribunal allowed the claim in the amount of Rs 7,78,000 togetherwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellants filed a firstappeal before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, by its impugnedjudgment, allowed an additional amount of Rs 33,000 under the head ofBloss of life, expenses and consortium but reduced the rate of interestfrom 12 % p.a. to 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the judgment of the HighCourt, the claimants are in appeal.

3. The deceased was 41 years old at the time of the accident. Hehad acquired a B.A. and B.Ed. qualification. For seven years, he hadCserved as President of the Taluka Panchayat.The deceased ownedagricultural land. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of thedeceased at Rs.81,000 comprised of his agricultural income and incomefrom other sources. Applying a multiplier of 12, the Tribunal computedan amount of Rs.7.56 lakhs towards the loss of dependency. A totalDamount of Rs 7.78 lakhs was awarded inclusive of conventional heads.In appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the total incomewould work out to Rs 92,000 out of which one fourth would be deductedfor personal expenses. Applying a multiplier of 14, the High Courtawarded an additional amount of Rs 33,000. However, the rate of interesthas been reduced to 9% per annum.E

4. Basically two submissions have been urged on behalf of theappellants. First, it has been urged that the High Court did not allow forfuture prospects for which provision has to be made in view of the lawsettled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National InsuranceCompany Limited v Pranay Sethi[1]. Second, it has been urged thatFthere was no justification for the High Court to reduce the award ofinterest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a.

5. The High Court has computed the total income of the deceasedat Rs 91,800 (Rs 55,000 being the income from agriculture and Rs 36,800being the income from salary). In view of the decision of the ConstitutionGBench in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 25% is warranted, onaccount of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased.The total income, after accounting for future prospects at 25% wouldwork out to Rs 1,14,000 per annum. An amount of one fourth wouldhave to be reduced on account of personal expenses. The net incomeH 1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12

BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER v. SIDABHA PETHABHAMANKE [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

would work out to Rs 85,500. Applying a multiplier of 14 the totalcompensation would work out to Rs 11,97,000. Adding a further amountof Rs 70,000 under conventional heads as stipulated in the judgment inPranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation payable would work outto Rs 12,67,000.

6. We find no reason to interfere with the award of interest at 9%p.a. by the High Court.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed by directing that the quantumof compensation shall stand enhanced to Rs 12,67,000 on which interestshall be payable at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

CORRIGENDUM

1. After the judgment was delivered on 5 April 2018, the matterhas been mentioned for correcting certain typographical mistakes in thejudgment. We accordingly correct the judgment dated 5 April 2018 tothe following extent:

(i) The last sentence of paragraph 4 shall stand corrected to readas follows:

“Second, it has been urged that there was no justification for theHigh Court to reduce the award of interest from 12% p.a. to 9%p.a.”

(ii) Paragraph 6 of the judgment shall stand substituted with the following paragraph:

“We find no reason to interfere with the award of interest at 9%p.a. by the High Court.”

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H