Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor vehicle accident – Death – Compensation – Computation of – Person living in Qatar since 1984 was visiting India in Nov. 1998 when he met with an accident while riding a scooter, with his wife as pillion rider, with a Maruti car coming from opposite direction – Tribunal calculated the compensation at Rs.1,90,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. – High Court computed the total compensation at Rs.96,78,000 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. – Held: In the absence of any other evidence produced by the Claimants, the income of the deceased computed by taking his base salary at 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. in 1984 as a skilled labourer, as reflected in his Employment Contract Form – By taking an increment of 10% p.a from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m, rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. – Exchange rate prevailing in 1998- 1 Qatari Riyal was equivalent to 12.41 INR – Income of the deceased2600 x 12.41= Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. – High Court rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses – Further, as per the judgment of Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, future prospects @ 30% are to be awarded – Thus, multiplicand for computing the compensation is Rs. 3,87,192 - 50% + 30% = Rs.2,51,675 – Deceased was 40 years of age at the time of his death, accordingly, the multiplier of 15 would be the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma case. Loss of dependency is Rs.2,51,675 x 15= Rs.37,75,125 – Amounts awarded under conventional heads also – Deduction of 50% by MACT and the High Court towards contributory negligence is affirmed – Total compensation of Rs.19,82,563/- awarded – Dependants have been pursuing legal proceedings since the past 22 years – Interest @12% p.a. be paid on total compensatio n from the date of filing the claim petition, till realization – Claimant No.1, widow of the deceased suffered permanent disability of 25% in this accident – Singlehandedly raised her three minor children, and eked out her livelihood through agricultural activity – 50% of the total compensation (inclusive of interest) be given to her and the balance 50% be divided equally between the three children.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1 The income of the deceased in 1984 as per his Employment Contract Form dated 21.08.1984, was 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. This document was duly certified by the Indian Embassy at Doha. In the absence of any other evidence being produced by the Claimants, the income of the deceased would be required to be computed by taking his base salary at 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. in 1984 as a skilled labourer, as reflected in his Employment Contract Form. A perusal of the passport entries of the deceased reveal that he had continued to remain in employment for a period of over 14 years in Qatar till he passed away in 1998. He was evidently doing fairly well, since there are numerous entries of foreign travel in his passport during the 14 years of his stay in Doha. By taking an increment of 10% per annum from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the deceased could be fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m., which can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. As per the exchange rate prevailing in 1998, 1 Qatari Riyal was equivalent to 12.41 INR. Accordingly, the income of the deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 = Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. Even though in Sarla Verma, it was held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th, if the number of dependant family members is four, in the present case, 50% of the income of the deceased would be required to be deducted, since he was living in a foreign country. The deceased had to maintain an establishment there, and incur expenditure for the same in commensurate with the high cost of living in a foreign country. Therefore, the High Court rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses. [Paras 9.1, 9.2][688-H; 689-A; 690-D-H; 691-A-B] Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – relied on.
1.2 In the present case, the courts below failed to award any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was just over
40 years of age at the time of his death. As per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, future prospects @30% are to be awarded for computing the compensation payable to the Claimants. The multiplicand for computing the compensation would therefore, work out to Rs. 3,87,192 – 50% + 30% = Rs. 2,51,675. The deceased Satpal Singh was 40 years of age at the time of his death. Accordingly, the multiplier of 15 would be the appropriate multiplier as per the table set out in Sarla Verma. Multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 2,51,675 by the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency payable to the Claimants would work out to Rs. 37,75,125. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi and Magma General, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads :-
i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000
ii) Loss of Consortium:
a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000
b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000
iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000
The deduction of 50% made by the MACT and the High Court towards contributory negligence is affirmed. [Paras 9.3 – 9.8][691-C-H; 692-A]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 – relied on.
1.3 Claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 19,82,563. The deceased Satpal Singh had died on 18.11.1998. His dependants have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of compensation since the past 22 years. As a consequence, Interest @12% p.a. be paid on the total compensation awarded, from the date of filing the claim petition, till realization. The Claimant No.
1 i.e. widow of the deceased has suffered permanent disability of 25% in this accident. She has single-handedly raised her three minor children, and eked out her livelihood through agricultural activity. 50% of the total compensation (inclusive of interest) be given to the Claimant No. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased, and the balance 50% be divided equally between the three children. [Paras 10, 13 and 14][692-A; 693-A-B]
Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013)
9 SCC 65; Munna Lal Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR 207; Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 554 : [2019] 6 SCR 941 – relied on.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176;
U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 443; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC
720 : [2005] 2 SCR 1173; Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636; Sunita Tokas and Ors. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2019 (11) SCALE 24 – 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.