S. VASANTHI vs. M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI ENGG. COLLEGE

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7180  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10206 of 2020] S. VASANTHI & ANR.          ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI ENGG.  COLLEGE AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated st 31  January, 2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2518 of 2016. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: nd 3.1 On 22  May, 2010, S. Sathiyanarayan was riding on a Bajaj Avenger motorcycle, bearing registration No. TN­04­ S­6492, at GST Road, Tambaram. While he was travelling from the south to north direction by the western side of the road,   a   bus   owned   by   M/s   Adhiparasakthi   Engineering College (respondent no. 1 herein), bearing registration No. 1 TN­21­H­2727,   which   was   being   driven   rashly   and negligently,   came   from   the   same   direction   and   dashed against his motor cycle from the backside, thus dragging him   under   the   wheels   of   the   bus.   S.   Sathiyanarayan perished on the spot.  3.2 Thereafter,   the   bereaved   parents   of   the   deceased, who are the appellants herein, filed a claim petition before the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Poonamallee (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being M.C.O.P. No. 1201 of 2010,   for   grant   of   compensation   to   the   tune   of Rs. 30,00,000/­ with interest, on account of the death of their son. 3.3 The   Tribunal,   noting   that   the   deceased   S. Sathiyanarayan was, at the time of the accident, twenty­ three years of age and a student in the second year of the MBA course at SRM University, passed an award amounting to Rs. 7,48,052/­ as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.  Pertinently, the  Tribunal  fixed  the   notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/­ per month, 2 since   he   was   not   earning   any   salary   at   the   time   of   the accident.  4. Aggrieved   by   the   amount   of   compensation   so awarded, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. Noting that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal was meagre, the High Court enhanced the notional income to a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ per month. Thus, the High Court enhanced   the   compensation   from   Rs.   7,48,052/­   to Rs. 16,27,000/­. Within that amount, the High Court also enhanced the amount of loss of dependency, loss of love and affection as well as funeral expenses, and further granted an amount of Rs. 15,000/­ as loss of estate. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 6. 7. We   have   heard   Mr.   T.   Harish   Kumar,   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A. K. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2­United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  8. Mr.   T.   Harish   Kumar,   learned   counsel   for   the appellants, submits that both the Tribunal and the High 3 Court have grossly erred in calculating the notional monthly income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan at the rate of Rs. 10,000/­. He submits that the High Court ought to have considered that S. Vasanthi ­ appellant No. 1, in an affidavit filed   by   her   before   the   Tribunal,   had   stated   that   two classmates   of   her   deceased   son   would   go   on   to   get employment with reputed companies in India on a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 40,000/­. The learned counsel submits   that   appellant   No.   1   had,   in   fact,   produced   the salary   certificates   of   the   said   two   classmates   with   her affidavit.   The   learned   counsel   therefore   submits   that   the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan, being an engineering graduate who  was   pursuing   an   MBA   degree   to  further   his   career, would have attracted well­paying jobs had he been alive. The learned counsel therefore submits that the notional monthly income   of   the   deceased  S.   Sathiyanarayan  should   be enhanced to Rs. 42842/­. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of  Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and 1 , in support of his contention. Another 1 (2022) 1 SCC 317 4 9. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents contend that both the Tribunal and the High Court were correct   in   assessing   the   notional   income   at   the   rate   of Rs. 7,000/­ and Rs. 10,000/­ per month respectively, as the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was not yet in employment and was merely a second­year student of his MBA course at that time. 10. A perusal of the affidavit filed by appellant No. 1 before the Tribunal would reveal that she had specifically stated   that   two   of   her   son’s   classmates   were   gainfully employed   with   well­known   companies   in   India   and   were drawing monthly income of Rs. 39,869/­ and Rs. 44,588/­ respectively.   It   will   be   relevant   to   note   that   neither   the Tribunal   nor   the   High   Court   has   adverted   to   these averments made by appellant No. 1.  11. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   the   deceased  S. Sathiyanarayan was twenty­three years of age at the time of the accident. He was a qualified engineering graduate and was pursuing an MBA degree at SRM University to further his   professional   capabilities.   In   view   of   the   specific averments   made   in   the   affidavit   as   to   the   employment 5 prospects   of   the   classmates   of   the   deceased  S. Sathiyanarayan and also his young age at the time of the accident,  we are of the considered view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not giving due weightage to the same. Had the deceased  S. Sathiyanarayan  not met with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount near the said amount. Furthermore, the deceased was the only issue of the appellants. Since no parent should have to suffer through the death of their children, much less their   only   child,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the monthly   income   as   calculated   by   the   High   Court   is inadequate.  12. Thus, we find that the compensation to be paid on account of the death of deceased S. Sathiyanarayan ought to be   worked   out   by   enhancing   his   monthly   income   to   Rs. 30,000/­.  However, we find that, since he was the only child of the appellants, in view of paragraphs (31) and (32) of the judgment in the case of  Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others v. 2 , as upheld by Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 a   Constitution   Bench   decision   in   the   case   of   National Insurance   Company   Limited   v.   Pranay   Sethi   and 3 Others , 50% of the amount would have to be deducted as personal and living expenses.  We further find that, insofar as the loss of consortium is concerned, an amount of Rs. 40,000/­   will   have   to   be   awarded.   The   compensation   on account of the death of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan is, therefore, being reassessed as under:

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7

13. The   enhanced   compensation   of   Rs.   29,84,000/­ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.  14. The   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   aforesaid   terms.  No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. …..….......................J. [B.R. GAVAI] .…….......................J.        [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 11, 2022. 8