-Report by Manya Sharma

A two Judge-Bench discussed fair and just compensation for the affected parties related to the deceased and provided for the heads to be considered while calculating the same. After considering a variety of factors, the Supreme Court ruled in the favour of the Appellants and allowed an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,29,260/-, who had felt aggrieved by the earlier judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

FACTS

On 11.08.2009, a bus of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Corporation, which was being driven by the deceased husband of the first Respondent, fell into river Chenab. It was carrying Sudesh Kumar, aged 32 years, who drowned in the river. The Appellants claimed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for total compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs, under different heads.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioners was correct and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, Mohd. Rasid. State Road Transport Corporation was held vicariously liable with Mohd. Rasid and the petitioners were entitled to an amount of Rs. 17,73,704/- with an interest of 6% per annum.

Dissatisfied by the compensation, the Appellants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for higher compensation and additional compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/- was granted to them at the interest rate of 9% per annum and the total compensation thus went up to Rs. 20,68,704/-. The Appellants still felt that the compensation was inadequate and hence approached the Supreme Court under Section 168 of the MV Act.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The Appellants, referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others, contended that the High Court, while giving the judgment and quantifying the amount payable, did not consider the future prospects of the deceased, under the head of ‘loss of dependency and other heads. It is also contended that no amount was added under the heads, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses.’

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Contrary to the Appellants, the Respondents contended that the High Court has granted just compensation to the Appellants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and no other factors need to be considered for the same as it is adequate. It is also further contended that the compensation under the head ‘loss of love’ is impermissible and under ‘loss of consortium,’ only Rs. 40,000 is to be granted going by the Pranay Sethi case.

COURT’S DECISION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there is no justification for not reckoning the future prospects which he would have had but for his untimely death. The Court took the decisions in Pranay Sethi’s case and Sarla Verma and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., and held that they have no hesitation to uphold the contention of the Appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased has to be added while calculating the compensation. The added amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, under the heads ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ was granted to the Appellants, by the Supreme Court, which was not granted by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court discussed the Pranay Sethi case, where three heads were recognized for the consideration of compensation and these heads were ‘loss of estate,’ ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and accordingly fixed the amounts to be added and deducted for the same in the calculation of total compensation. Apart from this, referring to the Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the court held that compensation to the head of ‘love and affection’ is impermissible for ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife’ and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ are admissible. Further, Rs. 40,000/- each was granted to minor children of the deceased and adjusted against ‘parental consortium’, the amount to be taken from the head of ‘love and affection which has to be removed from the list of heads, after deduction of the remaining Rs. 1,20,000/- from the same.

Thus, the Appellants were entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 10,29,260/- which would be paid within 8 weeks from the date of judgement, and in case of failure of the same, would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the date of realisation.