Nutan Rani and Anr. v. Gurmail Singh and Ors.
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The appeal is from a
judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated
23 February 2011, in a first appeal against a decision of the M otor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.
2. The appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of Ashok
Kumar who died as a result of an accident on 31 March 1994. He was
30 years old at the time of the accident and worked as a commi ssion
agent/salesman with a firm in Ludhiana. The accident took place while
he was travelling in a bus belonging to the Chandigarh T ransport
Undertaking. While he was alighting from the bus, it moved abru ptly
which caused him to fall. The fall resulted in serious injuries and led to
his death on the following day.
3. The heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the trib unal, to seek
compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The Tribunal held that negligence on the
part of the bus driver was not proved. However, an amount of Rs.50,000
was awarded towards no fault liability together with interest a t 12 per
cent per annum.
4. In appeal, the High Court drew an adverse inference on account
of the non-examination of the bus driver and awarde d a total
609
compensation of Rs 3,98,500. However, the rate of interest was reduced
to 6 per cent per annum. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court,
the heirs are in appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
assailed the award of compensation by urging that:
i. No addition on account of future prospects was made;
ii. The High Court erred in deducting 1/3 rd of the amount towards
personal expenditure without considering that the income of
the deceased was extremely low, at Rs. 3,000 per month. A
person earning a low income, who has a family to feed, would
not spend 1/3 rd of his income towards his personal expenditure;
and
iii. The rate of interest was reduced from 12% as awarded by the
MACT to 6% without adequate reason.
6. We find merit in the submission that the High Court erred in
not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of
the deceased. Having due regard to the judgment delivere d by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
v Pranay Sethi1, an addition towards future prospects is warranted.
The deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is proper.
7 The decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra),
warrants an addition of 40 per cent on account of future pros pects,
having regard to the age of the deceased. The total compensation payable
to the appellants in terms of the judgment in Pranay Sethi is computed
below:
· Income : Rs 3,000/-
· Percentage increase towards future prospects : 40%
· 3000 x 40% = Rs 1,200/-
· Total income : Rs 4,200/-
· One-third deduction : Rs 1,400/-
· Income after deduction : Rs 2,800/-
· Annual income = Rs 2,800 x 12 = Rs 33,600/-
· Multiplier applied : 17 (since age of deceased was 30 ye ars)
· Loss of dependency : Rs 33,600 x 17 = Rs 5,71,200/-
1(2017) 16 SCC 680
NUTAN RANI AND ANR. v. GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS.
[DR. D.Y . CHANDRACHUD, J.]
· Loss of consortium : Rs 40,000/-
· Loss of estate : Rs 15,000/-
· Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000/-
· Total compensation = Rs 6,41,200/-
8. Interest is allowed on the aforesaid amount at 9 per ce nt per
annum from the date of the petition until payment.
9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.