The deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed
at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family as one comprised of
the deceased and only two children. However, we are of the
opinion that since there was no employment specified of the
husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at
least partially dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence
the family has to be comprised of 4 in which circumstances the
deduction for personal expenses shall be at 1/4th. {Para 7}
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.27391 of 2018)
SRI MALAKAPPA & ORS. Vs THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 590.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants who were the claimants before the Tribunal
sought compensation for the death of the wife of the first appellant
whose children are second and third appellants. The claim arose
from the death of a pillion rider in an accident which occurred on
22.02.2015, as a result of which the pillion rider succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the accident; two days later i.e. on
24.02.2015.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants asserted an income of
₹15,000/- for the deceased, while she was alive, claiming her to
be a Coolie. The Tribunal considering the unspecified work in
which the deceased was employed, took the income at ₹7,000 and
reduced 1/3rd of the income determined for personal expenses;
finding the husband to be not dependent on the deceased, in
which event the dependant family consisted of the deceased and
her two children. Fifty percent was added for future prospects
and considering the age of the deceased, i.e. 35 years, a
multiplier of 16 was applied, determining the total loss at
₹13,44,000/-. On other heads also compensation was awarded
totalling ₹18,81,966/- as shown hereinbelow:
Nos. Particulars Amount in ₹
1 Loss of dependency 13,44,000/-
2 Loss of consortium 50,000/-
3 Medical expenses 21,966/-
4 Transport and funeral expenses 30,000/-
5 Loss of estate 3,36,000/-
6 Love and affection 1,00,000/-
Total 18,81,966/-
4. The insurance company filed appeal before the High Court
against the award also alleging that the accident was not due to
the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, based on the
eye-witness testimony and also the charge-sheet registered
against the driver. The High Court found the accident to have
been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the bike, whose owner is indemnified by the insurance
company. We find no reason to differ from the said findings.
5. The next issue considered was as to whether the petitioner
No.1 is a dependent. The husband of the deceased was not a
dependent though he was a legal heir especially since he was an
abled bodied person of 40 years, was the finding.
6. As far as the income of deceased though ₹15,000/- was
claimed, the income determined by the Tribunal was ₹7,000. The
High Court enhanced the income to ₹8,000/-; though there was
no appeal by the claimants.
7. The deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed
at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family as one comprised of
the deceased and only two children. However, we are of the
opinion that since there was no employment specified of the
husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at
least partially dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence
the family has to be comprised of 4 in which circumstances the
deduction for personal expenses shall be at 1/4th.
8. As far as the additions are concerned, the Tribunal
accepted 50% as future prospects, which the High Court deleted.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, a Constitution
Bench, insofar as a self-employed person below the age of 40
years, declared an addition for future prospects, which was
limited to 40%. The appropriate multiplier to be applied was
taken as 16 since the deceased was aged 35 years. The future
prospects of 50% as awarded by the Tribunal was deleted which
is proper, but this has to be granted at the rate of 40%. For loss of
estate and funeral expenses, ₹15,000/- was granted while for loss
of consortium a sum of ₹40,000/- was granted. In New India
Assurance Company vs. Somwati2 held that loss of consortium is
not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the
children and parents.
9. Since there was no appeal filed from the order of the
Tribunal determining the income at ₹7,000/-, we find no reason
to increase the income but however, the claimant would be
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2 2020 (9) SCC 644
entitled to 40% for future prospects and the deduction for
personal expenses will be 1/4th. The medical expenses as
accepted by the Tribunal based on bills has to be granted. In
addition to spousal loss of consortium children too are entitled at
the rate of ₹40,000/-. In the above circumstances, we award the
following compensation under the following heads:
Nos. Particulars Amount in ₹
1 Loss of dependency
8000x12x140%x16x1/4
16,12,800/-
2 Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
3 Medical expenses 21,966/-
4 Transport and funeral expenses 15,000/-
5 Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 17,84,766/-
10. There is no scope for loss of love and affection, since
already loss of consortium has been awarded. We are conscious
of the fact that incremental increases have been made from the
award of the Tribunal though the appellant had not challenged
the Tribunal’s order. We are of the opinion that what has been
enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts under the conventional
heads, while the percentage adopted for future prospects and the
deduction for personal expenses have been reduced. We do this
exercise on the trite principle that what is to be awarded is ‘just
compensation’ as has been held by the Constitution Bench. The
award as modified by us also does not exceed that granted by the
Tribunal. We dispose of the appeal with the above modifications.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2025.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment