SHIV KUMAR vs. GAINDA LAL

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7629 of 2022 Shiv Kumar & Ors.                   … Appellants Versus Gainda Lal & Ors.          …Respondents J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   dated   07.03.2019   passed   by   the   High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.10.21 16:55:36 IST Reason: No.854   of   2014,   the   original   claimants   have   preferred   the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.  1 2. That the wife of the appellant no.1 died in a vehicular accident.   At the relevant time, the  deceased was aged 25 years   and   was   a   housewife.     The   Motor   Accident   Claim Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/­ with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards the compensation under different heads.  The Learned   Tribunal   awarded   the   loss   of   dependency   at Rs.3,24,000/­   considering   the   income   of   the   deceased   at Rs.1,500/­ per month.  As at the relevant time the deceased was pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/­ for foetus.   Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/­ under different heads:

2

2.1 In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   at   Rs.29,34,000/­ under different heads:

3

2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants ­original claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency   considering   the   income   of   the   deceased   at Rs.6,000/­ per month only.   It is submitted that even the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than   Rs.6,000/­   per   month.     It   is   submitted   that   even otherwise   while   awarding   the   loss   of   dependency,   future prospect has not been taken into consideration at all. 3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awarding Rs.50,000/­ towards foetus.  It is submitted that the claimants   shall   be   entitled   to   a   sum   of   Rs.40,000/­   each 4 towards   loss   of   consortium   or   loss   of   love   and   affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of   the   contesting   respondents   –   Insurance   Company   has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the deceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/­ per month.  However, has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the loss of dependency considering future prospects. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing the tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/­ per month.   The 5 High Court has also not considered the future prospects.  As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency   40%   of   the   income   is   required   to   be   added towards future prospects. 5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/­ as awarded by the High Court for loss of foetus. 5.2 The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000/­ each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. 5.3 To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified. 6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, present appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants ­ original claimants shall be entitled to a 6 total sum of Rs.32,82,000/­ with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Present   appeal  is   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid extent.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. ………………………………….J.          [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI;     ….…………………………….J. OCTOBER 21, 2022.               [M.M. SUNDRESH] 7