SAVITA vs. BINDAR SINGH

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4001 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No.26135/2013] Smt. Savita … Appellant Vs. Bindar Singh & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the award dated December 3, 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.75/2011. The Tribunal directed the respondent – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 1 2 – to pay a sum of 4,28,000/- to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant.

3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR-56-6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents. 3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant asked for compensation of 20,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of JUDGMENT 12% per annum from the respondents/opposite parties. The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following issues were framed:- “ 1. Whether on dated 26.11.2010 the motor cycle of the deceased Sandeep Chauhan Chasis no. MD2DSPAZZTPE51258, Engine no. IBVBTF91396 Model Discover, Time: at about 10 PM at Malvia Chowk, then a driver of Truck bearing registration No. HR-56-6047 Page 2 3

2. Whether the motor used while accidence was having insurance, D.L., Fitness Registration etc. and was permitted to use?(sic) 3. Whether the petition of the claimants is contaminated from the required facts? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?” 3.3 The Tribunal held that on November 26, 2010, Driver Binder Singh while driving Truck No. HR-56-6047 with speed and carelessness in the centre of the road, hit the motorcycle of JUDGMENT Sandeep Chauhan, as a result of which Sandeep Chauhan was seriously injured and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The issues were also discussed by the Tribunal which further held that accidental vehicle was permitted to be driven with legal and effective documents and driving licenses. Page 3 4 3.4 On the issue of compensation the Tribunal after taking into account all the facts and materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that since the claimant could not prove that the

deceased was getting following the principle enunciated in an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, held that notional annual income of the deceased was 36,000/-. The Tribunal also followed the principle laid down in 1 Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and held that one third share from the notional income of the deceased should be deducted as his personal expenses to calculate compensation on the basis of the notional annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the deceased’s father, mother and wife were dependents on the deceased and they should be treated as JUDGMENT dependents of the deceased. The multiplier of 17 was fixed by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased who was 26 years of age at the time of the accident. After taking into account all these aspects, Tribunal came to the conclusion and assessed the compensation amount at 4,08,000/- and further granted 5,000/- for cremation, 5,000/- for loss of estate and 10,000/- for loss of 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page 4 5 consortium and thereby the compensation amount was determined at 4,28,000/- and also directed that interest to be paid at the rate of 6% per annum on the total compensation

decision. 3.5 Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that there was no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said award is wrong on the ground that a salary certificate has JUDGMENT been produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not accepted the same without any reason. She further submitted that the compensation which has been granted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court does not include the future prospects which should have been added to the claim and further the deduction with regard to the personal expenses could not have been made more than one tenth of the total salary received Page 5 6 by the victim. In support of such contention, she relied upon 2 Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. and further submitted that compensation under the head ‘loss of

3 which has been assessed by this Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh and the compensation under the said head should have been awarded for a sum of 1,00,000/-. She further submitted that the compensation under the head ‘funeral expenses’ should have been granted as 25,000/- and in support of her such contention, she relied upon the aforementioned decisions. On the contrary, it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that in Sarla Verma (supra), the principles laid down by this Court have been followed by the Tribunal and therefore there is no reason to interfere with JUDGMENT the award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal dismissed by the High Court. 5. This Court in Santosh Devi (supra), held as follows:

2 (2012) 6 SCC 421 3 (2013) 9 SCC 54 Page 6 7

6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) , we are of the Page 7 8 opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just

the claim made by the claimant in the application for JUDGMENT compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation. 7. In the instant case, it appears that the Tribunal and the High Court have also failed to consider the fact-situation of this case, without taking any pragmatic view and further without Page 8 9 considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, assessed the compensation ignoring the principle laid down by this Court in the recent decisions (see: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra) as also

came to the conclusion and awarded the total compensation for a sum of 4,28,000/-. In our opinion, such award suffers from proper assessment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and High Court on the conventional heads, i.e., ‘loss of consortium’ to the spouse, ‘future prospects of the deceased’ and further the sum awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’, cannot be said to be a just compensation. In our opinion, there should have been an endeavour on the part of the Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation factor and further they should have JUDGMENT considered the amounts fixed by the court several decades ago on such heads. Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we hold that the compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amounts should have been awarded under such heads, that is, for 1,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively and we award such Page 9 10 compensation under the said heads. So far as the head of ‘salary’ is concerned, we do not express any opinion since we have found that the appellant could not prove the salary certificate and for

expressed by the Tribunal on the established principle of notional income and accordingly, we do not want to disturb the said notional income while calculating the total compensation in favour of the appellant. 8. We have failed to understand why the Tribunal as well as the High Court lost its sight to hold that the victim could have had future prospects with regard to the amounts the victim used to earn during his life-time? Therefore, the notional income also needs to be increased by at least 30% and thereby the claimant is JUDGMENT entitled to get the benefit of 900/- being the future prospects; the said amount should be added to the notional income of the victim. Therefore, it appears that the total salary along with future prospects of the victim should have been calculated at 3,000/- plus 900/- amounting to 3,900/- per month. The total deduction on personal expenses, in our opinion, should have been one third Page 10 11 of 3,900/- amounting to 1,300/-. Therefore, salary after deduction would come to 2,600/- and the multiplier should be applied at 17, as has been done correctly by the Tribunal after taking into account the age of the victim. In this process, the total amount of compensation to be paid would be 2,600 x 17 x 12 amounting to 5,30,400/-.

Page 11 12

JUDGMENT …....……………………..J. (Gyan Sudha Misra) New Delhi; ......... …………………….J. March 25, 2014. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) Page 12 13 JUDGMENT Page 13