Motor Vehicles Accident – Enhancement of compensation – Victims, a housewife and her minor daughter, were travelling in a horse cart, which was hit by a bus resulting in their death – The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,54,500/- for the housewife and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the minor child – Appeal for enhancement of compensation dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Deduction of 50% made by the Tribunal towards contributory negligence while calculating the award is totally unjustified and unsustainable since no fault can be attributed to the deceased as they were passengers, not the driver or the owner of the house cart – Furthermore, if the housewife had survived, her contributions to the welfare and care of the family would have only been enhanced by time – Therefore, Appellants entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted – Thus, total compensation for housewife enhanced to Rs. 11,96,000/- – Insofar as minor child is concerned, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,95,000/-
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. No evidence has been led by the appellant with regard to any income of the first deceased from dairy business. The deceased were travelling in a horse cart along with others to a religious congregation. It is not the case of the respondents that the first deceased was driving the horse cart or was the owner of the same, much less that it was being driven under her supervision. The deceased were travelling as passengers along with others. The fact that the horse cart may have been in middle of the road at the time of the accident, no fault can be attributed to the deceased holding them liable to contributory negligence and denial of full compensation. This Court fails to understand how the deceased who were passengers in the horse cart can be held liable in any manner. The deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence in both the appeals is therefore held to be totally unjustified and unsustainable. The finding with regard to contributory negligence against both the deceased are therefore set aside. [Para 8][583-A-C]
2. The notional income of the first deceased-housewife is therefore held to be Rs.5000/- per month at the time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs.7,65,000/-. If the deceased had survived, in view of observations in Lata Wadhwa, her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted. This Court therefore assesses the total compensation payable to the appellants in the first appeal at Rs.11,96,000/-. [Para 11] [584-F-H]
3. The deduction on account of contributory negligence has already been held to be unsustainable. The determination of a just and proper compensation to the appellants with regard to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case does not persuade this Court to enhance the same any further from Rs.2,95,000/- by granting any further compensation under the separate head of “future prospects”. [Para 15][586-F-G]
Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 218 : [2010] 9 SCR 303; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender (2006) 13 SCC 60 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 745 – relied on.
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 776 : (2020) 4 SCC 413 – distinguished.
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578; R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009)
14 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR 87 – 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.