Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation, determination of – Compensation under head of ‘love and affection’, ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ – A bus fell into a river in which victim-deceased was a passenger and he drowned in the river – Appellants, wife and children of the deceased filed claim petition under s.166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.50 lakhs, under different heads – Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving and awarded Rs.17,73,704/- with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 20,68,704/- – On appeal, held: Future prospects were not taken into account while fixing the multiplicand – Evidence on record revealed that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death and he was working as a Head Constable in the RPF – There was absolutely no justification for not reckoning the future prospects which he would have had but for his untimely death – The contention of appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased is to be added while determining the income for calculation purpose is accepted – Taking into account the multiplicand and multiplier with reference to the age group of deceased, the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced amount of Rs. 8,84,160/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ – Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded to the appellants under the head ‘loss of estate’ and the ‘funeral expenses which was not granted by Tribunal as well as High Court – In the light of precedents of this court, appellant would be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ – The amount granted by High Court to appellants under the head of ‘love and affection’ to be adjusted against ‘parental consortium’ – Thus, appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.10,29,260/- which shall be paid by respondent no.4 within 8 weeks. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Future prospects were not taken into account by the Tribunal and High Court while fixing the ‘multiplicand’. The evidence on record would reveal that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death and he was working as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force. When that be the circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for not reckoning the future prospects which he would have had but for his untimely death. In the said circumstances, this Court upheld the contention of the Appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased is to be added while determining the income for calculation purpose. [Paras 8, 9][1035-G-H; 1036-A, D] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC); Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 – relied on.
2. Evidently, the Tribunal as also the High Court had correctly identified the ‘multiplier’ with reference to the age group of the deceased viz., between 30 and 35 years as 16. On reassessing the compensation for ‘loss of dependency’, taking into account the multiplicand and the multiplier as stated above it would be Rs. 26,52,864/-. The Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs. 17,68,704/-, virtually, under the head ‘total loss of income’ after applying the multiplier method and the same was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ the Appellants are entitled to get an enhanced amount of Rs. 8,84, 160/- (26,52,864 – 17,68,704). Further, no amount was granted towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ by the Tribunal as also by the High Court. Going by the decision of this Court Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded to the Appellants under the head ‘loss of estate’ and the ‘funeral expenses. [Paras 12, 13][1037-B-E]
3. In the instant case, compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’ Rupees One lakh was awarded by the High Court besides granting an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees one lakh each to the minor children) under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’. In the light of the binding decision of the Constitution Bench, interference is required with the grant of excess amount in respect of the compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and the grant of compensation under the non-existing head of ‘love and affection’. Hence, the Appellants are entitled only to get an additional compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. In other words, an amount of Rs. 65,000/- granted in excess under the said head and to be deducted. [Paras 17, 18][1039-D-F]
4. While considering the question of interference with the compensation granted by the High Court under the head of ‘love and affection’, it was observed that compensation under the head of ‘love and affection’ is impermissible when compensation for ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ are admissible. In the said circumstances, the amount of Rupees One lakh each granted by the High Court to Appellants
2 & 3 under the head ‘love and affection’ require to be deducted and at the same time, Rs. 40,000/- each, out of it can be granted, rather, adjusted against ‘parental consortium’ grantable to the minor children. Thus, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- has to be adjusted and can be granted to the minor children viz., Appellants No. 2 &
3 and the balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has to be deducted. [Paras 19, 20][1039-G; 1040-B, C-D]
Jana Bhai and Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. 2022 ACJ 203; Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 2018 ACJ 2782 – 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.