Case Type: Civil Appeal
Case No: 6339/2019
Appellants: Smt. Sunita Tokas & Anr
Respondents: New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Decided On: 16-08-2019
Case Referred:
- Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak & Ors.
- Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Ors
- Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors
Bench: Indu Malhotra J, Sanjiv Khanna J.
Facts:
The son of appellant Pradeep Tokas being a student, was a trained swimmer. On 11.05.2004 Pradeep Tokas was sitting as a pillion rider on a two wheeler. At 1:05 a.m the said two wheeler met with an accident with a stationary truck with Registration No. HR-51-GA-0525.
The truck was standing at the middle of the road without any indicator lights on and hence was not visible. Both the rider died on the spot due to accident.
Afterwhich the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MCAT) , Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. On 25.05.2009 awarded compensation of ₹14,87,140/- with an interest @ 7 p.a.
Aggrieved by the order the appellant approached to the Delhi High Court for enhancement of compensation. Whereas the respondent Insurance Company filed a cross appeal for reduction of compensation.
The High Court allowed the respondent’s appeal and dismissed the appeal by appellant, hence reduced the amount of compensation as awarded by MCAT to ₹ 9,25,000/-.
Dissatisfied by the order of High Court the Claimant filed the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Determination of compensation.
Whether the multiplier to be applied should be computed upon the age of the mother or upon the age of the deceased.
Obiter dicta:
The Claimant in accident cases should be a dependant who is entitled to receive compensation. And the compensation shall be based upon what the deceased would have contributed to their support, during his life.
Ratio decedendi:
Considering the various imponderables in life and socio-economic factors, the table of multiplier which shall be chosen should be from the age as identified by the Supreme Court. The age of the dependants should not be considered while computing the multiplier. Only the age of the deceased should be considered.
In case of deceased of married person the Court takes into consideration the age of the deceased. The same principle should be applied for a decease of a bachelor. Therefore to avoid any stupefaction, the Court should avert from deviating from the settled principle.
As per the table set out in Sarla Verma’s case the multiplier that fits best in the instant case was 18.
The Court held that the deceased was winner of State-level swimming competition, and hence possessed the qualification to earn his living by utilising his skills. Therefore the High Court erred in reducing the notional income to ₹7,500/-, whereas it should correctly stand at ₹12,000/- p.m.
Judgment
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Indu Malhotra J, Sanjiv Khanna J. held the following:
The award by the High Court with regard to loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses was correct and maintained. The interest awarded by the MACT was also correct and maintained.
The Court re-assessed the compensation by enhancing it as follows:
| SL. No. | HEADS | CALCUALTION |
| 1. | Income | ₹12,000/- |
| 2. | Future Prospects 40% of 1. | ₹12,000 + 4,800 = 16,800 |
| 3. | Deduction towards personal expense 50% of 2. | ₹8,400/- |
| 4. | Multiplier | ₹8,400 × 12 × 18 = ₹18,14,400/- |
| 5. | Loss of Love and Affection | ₹2,00,000/- |
| 6. | Loss of estate and funeral expense | ₹50,000/- |
| 7. | Total Compensation | ₹20,64,400/- |
| 8. | Enhanced Compensation | ₹20,64,400 -₹ 9,5,000 = ₹11,39,400/- |
The insurance company was directed to pay the enhanced amount of ₹11,39,400/- with interest @ 7% p.a (if not realised) to the claimant within 1 month from the date of judgement.
Hence the appeal was allowed.
Conclusion:
Awarding monetary compensation itself is a delicate function of the Court of law. And upon that, making an enhancement is a colossal task which requires efficiency of exceptional quality. And as always Supreme Court standby its name. Supreme in Justice and noble and methodical by conduct.
Kaushal Agarwal
