caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
M.H. Uma Maheshwari vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 12 June, 2020Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy, Surya Kant
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2558 OF 2020
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.19221 of 2018]
M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors. …..Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …..Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the claimants in a claim petition filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) in
MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI and
III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short, ‘the Tribunal’),
aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed in Misc. First
Appeal No.4903 of 2016 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2020.06.12
15:52:52 IST
Reason: 3. Necessary facts in brief are as under :
1
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
The deceased S.T. Devaraju was the husband of first appellant
and father of appellant nos.2 and 3. On 16.07.2012 when he was
travelling in the car, viz., Tata Indigo Manza bearing registration no.KA-
19-MC-5879 to Raichur, the said car met with an accident. The
deceased Devaraju suffered severe injuries and subsequently died. The
deceased Devaraju was working as Commissioner of Raichur City
Municipal Corporation during the relevant time.
4. The appellants herein, alleging that accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It was the case of the appellants
that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- and he
was the KGS Cadre officer selected through Public Service
Commission. Further pleading that due to untimely death of the
deceased, the appellants lost dependency and the deceased was
having bright future, the above said claim was made. The claim was
opposed by the respondents by filing the written statement. The
appellants have led oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
The first appellant was examined as PW-1 and on their behalf the other
two witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and documents Ex.P1
to P24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence
was adduced and only a copy of the Insurance Policy was marked as
exhibit, with consent.
2
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
5. The Tribunal, by considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record, has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and proceeded to quantify
the compensation. Having regard to the evidence on record, the
Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was earning
Rs.50,463/- p.m. by way of salary, by applying the principles laid down in
the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr.1 applied the multiplier of 13 and by giving 30% towards future
prospects, arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,02,33,912. Out of the said
sum, by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure and 10%
towards income tax, the Tribunal has held that the appellant-claimants
were entitled to a compensation of Rs.61,40,347.20 towards loss of
dependency. By further awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium to the first appellant and Rs.3,00,000/- for all the
appellants towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards
funeral expenses against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal has
awarded the total compensation of Rs.65,60,347.20.
6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the first respondent –
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred Misc. First Appeal
No.4903 of 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The
award of the Tribunal was mainly assailed before the High Court on
three grounds, namely, that as the deceased was over 50 years of age,
the Tribunal committed error in computing the future prospects at 30%;
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
secondly it was the case of the first respondent that as the first appellant
was claiming family pension, deduction should have been made while
computing the loss of dependency; and thirdly by awarding the
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first appellant towards loss of
consortium, the Tribunal again granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to
all the appellants under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. The High
Court, on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on
the date of accident, has come to the conclusion that the appellants are
entitled to compensation on account of loss of dependency by
computing future prospects of the deceased at 15% and not 30%.
Further it was held that by awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium to the first appellant, the Tribunal has committed error
by awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to the first appellant towards the head ‘loss of
love and affection’. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court has re-
calculated the compensation payable to the appellants at
Rs.57,78,480/-, i.e., Rs.54,33,480/- towards loss of dependency;
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.2,00,000/- towards of love
and affection to the children; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body.
7. We have heard Sri Shekhar Devasa, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, learned counsel appearing
for the 1st respondent-Insurance Company and perused the material on
record. Though notice is served on respondent no.2, he remains
unrepresented.
4
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
8. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the
age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 while calculating
the compensation. The High Court, curiously while maintaining the
multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla
Verma1, has reduced the compensation only on the ground that the
deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as
such the compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of
dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%. So far as
the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned, the High
Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of the deceased
was considered in the group of 40 to 50 years, we are of the view that
the High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future
prospects instead of 30%. As per the judgments of this Court primarily
the age group is to be considered. Considering the age group as 40 to
50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court,
there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by
granting 15% towards future prospects. Though the learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1-Insurance Company has submitted that
the compensation towards future prospects was awarded as per the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2 but at the same
time it is to be noticed that in the very same judgment in paragraph 59.3
while considering the grant of future prospects, this Court has
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
5
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
specifically said that the addition should be 30% if the age of the
deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. For application of
multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of the
deceased between 40 and 50 years. In that view of the matter, there is
no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospects at
15% only. In absence of any challenge to the findings recorded by the
High Court confirming the application of multiplier of 13, we are of the
view that the High Court has committed error in reducing the
compensation on account of loss of dependency. For loss of love and
affection, when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of
consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not entitled for
another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at the same time though
the appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of
dead body and funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards the respective heads. Taking into
account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that
even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/- ought not have been reduced by the
High Court.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the
same was interfered with by the High Court without any valid grounds,
as such, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated
20.07.2016 passed in Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 (MV-D) by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and restore the award dated
6
C.A.@SLP(C)No.19221 of 2018
29.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1639 of 2012 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore. No order as
to costs.
………….…………………………………J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
….…………………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
….…………………………………………J.
[SURYA KANT]
New Delhi.
June 12, 2020.
7
Comments