Supreme Court of India
SARUP SINGH @ RAM SARUP versus HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. on 17 October 2022
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1008
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
ASARUP SINGH @ RAM SARUP
v.
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANYLTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7283-7284 of 2022)
B
OCTOBER 17, 2022.
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation – Fatal accident –Tribunal considered notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000Cper month and awarded compensation of Rs.20.64 lacs – High Courtreduced compensation to Rs.11.34 lacs by considering notionalincome of Rs.6500 per month – High Court also reduced rate ofinterest from 9% to 6% p.a. – Appeal by claimants against reductionof compensation – Held: The amount awarded by the High CourtDcan be said to be on lower side – While awarding the loss ofdependency, the High Court did not award/consider the futureprospects at all – Considering the decision in the case of PranaySethi and Ors. and the decision in the case of Janabai, the claimantshall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortiumfor minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium for wifeEand Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father of thedeceased – High Court also erred in reducing interest from 9% p.a.to 6% p.a. – Considering the fact that the deceased died in the year2012, the claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a.
Partly allowing the appeals, the CourtF
HELD: The amount awarded by the High Court can besaid to be on lower side. While awarding the loss of dependency,the High Court has not awarded/considered the future prospectsat all. As per the decision of this Court in the case of NationalInsurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., there shallGbe 40% rise towards future prospects. Therefore, even ifconsidering the notional income @ Rs. 6,500/- per month asdetermined by the High Court and adding 40% towards futureprospects and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expense of thedeceased and by applying the multiple of 17, the claimant shall H
be entitled to Rs. 12,37,790/- under the head loss of dependency.Considering the decision of this Court in the case of Pranay Sethiand Ors. and the recent decision of this Court in the case of Janabaiand Ors. Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,the claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parentalconsortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards spousalconsortium for wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium forthe father of the deceased. Thus, the claimants shall be entitledto Rs. 1,20,000/- under the head loss of consortium. Theclaimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under theconventional head (funeral expense and loss of estate). The HighCourt has also erred in reducing the interest from 9% p.a. to 6%p.a. Considering the fact that the deceased died in the year 2012,the claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. [Para4][1010-F-H; 1011-A-C]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethiand Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100;Janabai and Ors. v. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard GeneralInsurance Company Ltd. 2022 ACJ 2003 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 13 SCR 100relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7283-7284 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 16.05.2017 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cross Objection No.209-C-II of 2017 and FAO No. 246 of 2015.
Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Ms. Sanya Kaushal, SiddhantSaroha, Tushar Bathija, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sukant Vikram, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, 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. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court reducing the amount of compensationfrom Rs. 20,64,000/- as awarded by the learned Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) to Rs.11,34,136/- A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aalongwith interest @ 6% p.a., the original claimants have preferred thepresent appeals.
2. The deceased at the time of accident was of 28 years of age.The original claimants – wife of the deceased, minor daughter,father and sister of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.BThe learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased atRs. 10,000/- per month and thereafter adding 30% towards the futureprospect and thereafter deducting 1/4[th] towards the personal expenseof the deceased, awarded Rs. 19,89,000/- under the head loss ofdependency. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towardsCloss of consortium or loss of love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- underthe conventional head (funeral expenses and loss of estate). Thus, thelearned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.20,64,000/- with interest @
9% p.a. towards the compensation for the death of the deceased.
3. In an appeal preferred by the insurance company, the HighDCourt has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 11,34,136/- byconsidering the notional income @ Rs. 6,500/- per month and thereafterdeducting 1/3[rd] towards the personal expense of the deceased anddetermined/awarded Rs. 8,84,136/- under the head loss of dependency.The High Court has also awarded a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towardsloss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affectionEfor the child and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of estate. However, the HighCourt has also reduced the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. Theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subjectmatter of the present appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theFrespective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the amountawarded by the High Court can be said to be on lower side. Whileawarding the loss of dependency, the High Court has not awarded/considered the future prospects at all. As per the decision of this CourtGin the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. PranaySethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be 40% rise towardsfuture prospects. Therefore, even if we consider the notional income @Rs. 6,500/- per month as determined by the High Court and adding 40%towards future prospects and deducting 1/3[rd] towards personal expenseof the deceased and by applying the multiple of 17, the claimant shall beH
entitled to Rs. 12,37,790/- under the head loss of dependency. Consideringthe decision of this Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra)and the recent decision of this Court in the case of Janabai and Ors.Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022ACJ 2003, the claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towardsparental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards spousalconsortium for wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for thefather of the deceased. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled toRs. 1,20,000/- under the head loss of consortium. The claimants shallalso be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head (funeralexpense and loss of estate). The High Court has also erred in reducingthe interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. Considering the fact that thedeceased died in the year 2012, the claimants shall be entitled to theinterest @ 7.5% p.a. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 13,87,790/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals are allowed in part. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is modified and it is held and directed that theappellants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 13,78,790/- with interest@ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realizationtowards the compensation for the death of the deceased.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeals partly allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H