M. H. UMA MAHESHWARI & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

[2020] 5 S.C.R. 259

M. H. UMA MAHESHWARI & ORS.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 2020)

JUNE 12, 2020

[N. V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDYAND SURYA KANT, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

s. 166 – Fatal accident – Of 50 year old person – Claim forcompensation – Tribunal while awarding compensation appliedmultiplier of 13 and gave 30% towards future prospects – HighCourt reduced the compensation amount by granting 15% towardsfuture prospects – However, High Court maintained multiplier of13 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Since High Courtmaintained the multiplier of 13, there was no justification forreducing the compensation by granting 15% towards futureprospects – Compensation awarded by Tribunal was just andreasonable – Compensation.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The Tribunal, by recording finding that thedeceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied themultiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The HighCourt, while maintaining the multiplier of 13 has reduced thecompensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such thecompensation is to be calculated on account of loss ofdependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%.So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal isconcerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same.When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of40 to 50 years, the High Court has committed error in grantingonly 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. Consideringthe age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 ismaintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justificationfor reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards futureprospects. [Para 8] [263-C-F]

260SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2020] 5 S.C.R.

ASarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 –relied on.

2. If the age of the deceased is in the age group of 40 to50 years as regards future prospects addition should be 30%.BFor application of multiplier, the High Court has also acceptedthe age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In thatview of the matter, there is no reason for reducing thecompensation by granting future prospects at 15% only. Inabsence of any challenge to the findings recorded by the HighCourt confirming the application of multiplier of 13, the HighCCourt has committed error in reducing the compensation onaccount of loss of dependency. For loss of love and affection,when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss ofconsortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was notentitled for another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at theDsame time though the appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/-towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, onlyan amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was awarded towardsthe respective heads. Taking into account the facts andcircumstances of the case, even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/-ought not have been reduced by the High Court. Therefore, theEcompensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable andthe same was interfered with by the High Court without any validgrounds. [Paras 8 and 9] [263-G-H; 264-A-D]

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 –Ffollowed.

Case Law Reference

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2017 of the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 (MV-D).H

Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Luv Kumar for M/s. Devasa& Co., Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for theappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed by the claimants in claim petitionfiled under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘theAct’) in MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short,‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed inMisc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 by the High Court of Karnatakaat Bengaluru.

3. Necessary facts in brief are as under :

The deceased S.T. Devaraju was the husband of first appellantand father of appellant nos.2 and 3. On 16.07.2012 when he wastravelling in the car, viz., Tata Indigo Manza bearing registration no.KA-19-MC-5879 to Raichur, the said car met with an accident. Thedeceased Devaraju suffered severe injuries and subsequently died. Thedeceased Devaraju was working as Commissioner of Raichur CityMunicipal Corporation during the relevant time.

4. The appellants herein, alleging that accident occurred due torash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, filed claim petitionunder Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It was the case of the appellantsthat the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- and hewas the KGS Cadre officer selected through Public ServiceCommission. Further pleading that due to untimely death of thedeceased, the appellants lost dependency and the deceased was havingbright future, the above said claim was made. The claim was opposedby the respondents by filing the written statement. The appellants haveled oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The firstappellant was examined as PW-1 and on their behalf the other twowitnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and documents Ex.P1to P24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidencewas adduced and only copy of the Insurance Policy was marked asexhibit, with consent.

A5. The Tribunal, by considering the oral and documentaryevidence on record, has recorded finding that the accident occurreddue to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and proceeded toquantify the compensation. Having regard to the evidence on record,the Tribunal, by recording finding that the deceased was earningBRs. 50,463/- p.m. by way of salary, by applying the principles laid downin the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation& Anr.[1] applied the multiplier of 13 and by giving 30% towards futureprospects, arrived at compensation of Rs.1,02,33,912. Out of the saidsum, by deducting 1/3[rd] towards the personal expenditure and 10%towards income tax, the Tribunal has held that the appellant-claimantsCwere entitled to compensation of Rs.61,40,347.20 towards loss ofdependency. By further awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towardsloss of consortium to the first appellant and Rs.3,00,000/- for all theappellants towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towardsfuneral expenses against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal hasDawarded the total compensation of Rs.65,60,347.20.6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the first respondent– United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred Misc. First AppealNo.4903 of 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.The award of the Tribunal was mainly assailed before the High CourtEon three grounds, namely, that as the deceased was over 50 years ofage, the Tribunal committed error in computing the future prospects at30%; secondly it was the case of the first respondent that as the firstappellant was claiming family pension, deduction should have been madewhile computing the loss of dependency; and thirdly by awarding theFcompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first appellant towards loss ofconsortium, the Tribunal again granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-to all the appellants under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. TheHigh Court, on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years 3months on the date of accident, has come to the conclusion that theappellants are entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependencyGby computing future prospects of the deceased at 15% and not 30%.Further it was held that by awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towardsloss of consortium to the first appellant, the Tribunal has committed errorby awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to the first appellant towards the head ‘lossof love and affection’. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court has

H1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

re-calculated the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs.57,78,480/-, i.e., Rs.54,33,480/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.1,00,000/- towardsloss of consortium; Rs.2,00,000/- towards of love and affection to thechildren; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towardstransportation of dead body.

7. We have heard Sri Shekhar Devasa, learned counsel appearingfor the appellants and Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, learned counsel appearingfor the 1[st] respondent-Insurance Company and perused the material onrecord. Though notice is served on respondent no.2, he remainsunrepresented.

8. The Tribunal, by recording finding that the deceased was inthe age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 whilecalculating the compensation. The High Court, curiously whilemaintaining the multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in thecase of Sarla Verma[1], has reduced the compensation only on the groundthat the deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of theaccident, as such the compensation is to be calculated on account ofloss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%.So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned,the High Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of thedeceased was considered in the group of 40 to 50 years, we are of theview that the High Court has committed error in granting only 15%towards future prospects instead of 30%. As per the judgments of thisCourt primarily the age group is to be considered. Considering the agegroup as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by theHigh Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing thecompensation by granting 15% towards future prospects. Though thelearned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Insurance Company hassubmitted that the compensation towards future prospects was awardedas per the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case ofNational Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.[2]but at the same time it is to be noticed that in the very same judgmentin paragraph 59.3 while considering the grant of future prospects, thisCourt has specifically said that the addition should be 30% if the ageof the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. For applicationof multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of thedeceased between 40 and 50 years. In that view of the matter, there

Ais no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospectsat 15% only. In absence of any challenge to the findings recorded bythe High Court confirming the application of multiplier of 13, we are ofthe view that the High Court has committed error in reducing thecompensation on account of loss of dependency. For loss of love andaffection, when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of lossBof consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not entitledfor another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at the same time thoughthe appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of deadbody and funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.20,000/- andRs.25,000/- was awarded towards the respective heads. Taking intoCaccount the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the viewthat even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/- ought not have been reduced bythe High Court.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that thecompensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and theDsame was interfered with by the High Court without any valid grounds,as such, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated20.07.2016 passed in Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 (MV-D) bythe High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and restore the award dated29.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1639 of 2012 by the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore. No orderEas to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.