Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition where the appellants filed for the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act). The issue before the SC was whether the pecuniary loss which had occurred on account of death of the victim has to be computed on pegging it on her personal income, she earned from her employment approximately three years back or it should be relatable to the income of her surviving husband.
Brief Facts:
Anaccident had occurred on 28th February 2011 which resulted in death of one BalaBabitha, and caused injuries to her husband and her minordaughter. The first appellant is the husband of the deceased. Thesecond and the third appellants are their children, who wereminors by age at the point of time the accident occurred. Thefourth appellant is the mother of the deceased. The first appellantand the third appellant alongwith the deceased were travelling inan auto rickshaw, which was hit by a vehicle.The respondent no. 1 was the owner of that vehicle.The second respondent is the insurance company, whose policycovered the offending vehicle.Claim was lodged by the appellants under Section 166 of the1988 Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation infavour of the appellant no.1 for a sum of Rs.4,77,100/.Theminor daughter (appellant no.3) of the deceased and the firstappellant was awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,000/.The Tribunal found the husband’s incometo be Rs.78,700/permonth. This finding of monthly income ofthe husband was not disturbed by the High Court.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court reduced the sum awarded as compensation in respect of the first appellant to Rs.3,41,000/. As regards the third appellant, award of Rs.2,06,000/as compensation was retained. Compensation awarded to the family of the deceased victim was modified and reduced to Rs.32,82,090/by the High Court.
SC’s Observations:
The issue for consideration for the bench was whether the pecuniary loss which had occurred on account of death of the victim has to be computed on pegging it on her personal income she earned from her employment approximately three years back or it should be relatable to the income of her surviving husband?
SC opined that, the judgment of the High Court on this pointsuffers from error on two counts. At the time of her death, thedeceased was not in employment. She was a homemaker. It was
not a case where the deceased at the time of accident had just lefther job. If that was the case, her last drawn salary might havehad given reliable guidance for computing her monthly income atthat point of time. Here the deceased remained withoutemployment for a period of approximately three years and whatshe earned prior to that ought not to have been treated to be hermonthly income to arrive at just and proper compensation underthe head of pecuniary loss, as has been held by the High Court.
SC further opined that there is a long-time gap between the time she was in employmentand the occurrence of the accident. Her monthly salaryapproximately three years back thus would be an unreliableguide for fixing her notional income when she succumbed to herinjuries caused by the accident. Moreover, at the time of theaccident, she was a homemaker providing care and support toher family.
SC stated that the computationmethodology prescribed in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal And Another vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Others.would be more appropriate to apply, which was done bythe Tribunal.
SC referred the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Othersvs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, where the deduction has been held to be valid in a case where there weredependent family members. SC stated that “we should not restrict the expression “dependent” to mean those financially dependent only. Minor children are emotionally dependent on the mother. They lost care and guidance of their mother at a very young age. While arriving at just compensation, the Tribunal ought to factor in the loss of dependency in these terms.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “High Court has thus committed error in law while providing for compensation under the heads of loss of love and affection and also loss of consortium.We find no reason to interfere with the High Court’s finding as regards computation of compensation on other heads. Interest of 7.5% per annum has been awarded by both the Tribunal and the High Court. We do not disturb the concurrent views of the High Court and the Tribunal on the rate of interest.”
Case Title: S. Chandrasekharan &Ors. v. M. Dinakar&Anr.
Bench: J. Dinesh Maheshwari and J. Aniruddha Bose
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 46884689 OF 2022
Decided on: 11th July, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :