Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident – Compensation – Computation of loss of income and loss of consortium – Victim-deceased died in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck – Deceased was a farmer/agriculturist aged about 35 years at the time of the incident, who was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his mother – Claim petition u/s.166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- with 6% interest – Appeal by claimants on the ground that the Tribunal only considered the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri crops which were also cultivated on the lands – High Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000/ along with 7.5% interest; High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 95,000/-, added 40% future prospects and deducted one-fourth towards expenses of the deceased – Still aggrieved with the amount of compensation, claimants filed instant appeal – Held: Deceased was a lambardar of the village, and a graduate – The documentary evidence on record showed that he was cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to one-third of the value of produce from income of those agricultural lands – In addition, he owned and was getting
12 acres cultivated – Admitted returns were to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- – According to deceased’s wife, the deceased’s income was Rs. 1,00,000/-; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore – Whilst there was no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation of extensive lands – Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @ Rs. 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and insufficient – It would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual income should be computed @ Rs.1,50,000/- per annum – Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income amounts to 2,10,000 – With a one-fourth deduction (dependents), the annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 25,20,000.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The documentary evidence included the forms filled and submitted to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Besides, the documents included the agreement between the deceased, his parents, and brother, whereby he was permitted to cultivate the lands owned by them, and entitled to 1/3 of the value of the produce. It is an uncontroverted fact that he was also a lambardar of the village, and a graduate. The total extent of land he cultivated was 66 acres. He owned 12 acres. The tribunal arrived at a lump sum amount of Rs. 95,000/- per annum, and deducted 1/3rd from that sum, on the ground that it constituted expenditure, and made a further deduction of 1/3rd amount towards the deceased’s living expenses. The High Court added Rs. 38,000/- towards the sum of Rs. 95,000/-, towards future prospects (@ 40%) and deducted 1/4th towards expenses of the deceased, thus resulting in recomputation of income at Rs. 99,750/- per annum. It applied a multiplier of 16 and added other elements to arrive at the final figure of Rs. 17,66,000/with interest @ 7.5% per annum. [Para 8][59-E-H]
2. Even while the High Court increased the level of income, it did not address the issue in the correct perspective. The documentary evidence on record showed that the deceased was cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the value of produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted returns were to the tune of Rs. 95,000/-. According to the first appellant (the deceased’s wife) the deceased’s income was Rs. 1,00,000/- per month; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore. Whilst there is no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @ 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and insufficient. It would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual income should be computed @ Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to 2,10,000. With a 1/4th deduction (dependents), the annual loss of dependency (Rs. 2,10,000 - Rs. 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500. Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. 25,20,000. [Para 9][60-A-D]
Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram – relied on.
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54: [2013] 5 SCR 961; National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.