2012 (4) TMI 778 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition for Sufficiency of Quantum of compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988I (the Act) - the appellant s husband died in a road accident when the Maruti car in which he was travelling with husband of respondent No. 2 and the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 went out of control. husband of respondent No. 2, who was driving the vehicle also suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. HELD THAT - It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., ₹ 500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is ₹ 1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. The Tribunal s observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated dependant on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross-examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons who had become major can no longer be regarded dependant on the deceased. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is declared that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of ₹ 2,94,840 ₹ 1,500 30% of ₹ 1,500 ₹ 1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses ₹ 1,755 x 12 x 14 ₹ 2,94,840 . The claimants shall also be entitled to ₹ 5,000/- for transportation of the body, ₹ 10,000/- as funeral expenses and ₹ 10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be ₹ 3,19,840/-. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. ₹ 1,42,340/- (₹ 3,19,840 - ₹ 1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realisation. Respondent No.1 Insurance Company is directed to pay to the appellant the total amount of compensation within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered to her at the address given in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the death of Swaran Singh occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Varinder Singh.
2. Determination of the amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom.
3. Relief to be granted.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Rash and Negligent Driving
The Tribunal affirmed that Swaran Singh's death resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by Varinder Singh. This conclusion was drawn after analyzing the evidence, including testimonies from the appellant and other witnesses.

Issue 2: Amount of Compensation
The Tribunal initially determined Swaran Singh's income as Rs. 1,500 per month, based on the appellant's cross-examination statement that the deceased did not own agricultural land but cultivated land on a lease basis. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 500 for personal expenses and used a multiplier of 11, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,32,000 with 12% interest per annum.

The High Court revised this amount, applying a multiplier of 14 as per the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation case, resulting in a compensation of Rs. 1,77,500 with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal till realization.

The Supreme Court found fault with the Tribunal and High Court's approach, particularly in not considering a 30% increase in the deceased's income for future prospects, as outlined in Sarla Verma's case. The Court also criticized the deduction of Rs. 500 for personal expenses as disproportionate, given the deceased's meager income and the number of dependents. It was noted that a person with an income of Rs. 1,500 per month would likely spend only 1/10th on personal expenses.

The Supreme Court also rejected the Tribunal's view that the deceased's two sons were not dependents due to their age, as there was no evidence to suggest they were not dependent on the deceased.

Issue 3: Relief
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal. It declared the claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,94,840, calculated as follows: Rs. 1,500 + 30% of Rs. 1,500 = Rs. 1,950 less 1/10th for personal expenses = Rs. 1,755 x 12 x 14. Additionally, Rs. 5,000 was awarded for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium, totaling Rs. 3,19,840. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,42,340 (Rs. 3,19,840 - Rs. 1,77,500) was to carry 7% interest from the date of application till realization.

The Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) was directed to pay the total compensation amount within three months, deducting any amount already paid to the appellant.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment provided a comprehensive re-evaluation of the compensation amount, ensuring a just and fair calculation in line with established legal precedents and socio-economic considerations. The decision emphasized the need for periodic revisits of legal standards to reflect changing societal values and economic conditions.