Supreme Court: Sum for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years from the year 2017

 In Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. It was held thus:

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

33. The judgment in Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement. Thus, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. {Para 32}

34. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.   MANU/SC/0500/2020 : AIR 2020 SC 3076, after considering Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs. 44,000/- (Forty-four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 44,000/- each (Total Rs. 88,000/-) is awarded to the two children.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether mother in law of deceased son in law is entitled to get compensation under motor accident claim petition?

 In the instant case, the question for consideration is whether the fourth Appellant would fall under the expression 'legal representative' for the purpose of claiming compensation. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr.   MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234 this Court while considering the entitlement of the brother of a deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident to maintain a claim petition under the provisions of the MV Act, held as under:

13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed Under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. 

19. In Hafizun Begum (Mrs) v. Mohd. Ikram Heque and Ors.   MANU/SC/3045/2007 : (2007) 10 SCC 715 it was held that:

7. ...12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique   MANU/SC/0149/1989 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) Code of Civil Procedure is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead, it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased, can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai   MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

17. Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and English Courts but also upon Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or an organisation may suffer considerable loss due to the death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Sudama Devi v. Jogendra Choudhary   MANU/BH/0024/1987 : AIR 1987 Pat 239, which held that the term "legal representative" is wide enough to include even "intermeddlers" with the estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth Appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant No. 4 herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a "legal representative" Under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of applying split multiplier for calculation of compensation under motor accident claim petition

 In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Tribunal went wrong in applying the split multiplier method. This Court notices that the issue was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jayasree N. (supra) and Usha Kumari (supra), where again the Honourable Supreme Court has frowned upon the split multiplier method and reiterated the multiplier method. This Court, therefore finds that instead of applying the multiplier of '9' and '5' to the pre-retirement and post-retirement respectively, a standard multiplier of '14' has to be applied. It is so held. {Para 12}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA Nos. 688 of 2013 and 216 of 2015

Decided On: 27.07.2023

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Khader and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C. Jayachandran, J.

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5686,MANU/KE/1831/2023.

Print Page

Supreme court: Motor accident claim tribunal should not apply split multiplier for calculation of compensation

 For determination of compensation in motor accident claims Under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma   MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier. {Para 32}

33. In K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer   MANU/SC/0129/2011 : (2011) 4 SCC 689 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 692, paras 14-15)

14. In the appeal which was filed by the Appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6.

15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.

34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the tribunal or the court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in Sarla Verma   MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari   MANU/SC/0287/2013 : (2013) 9 SCC 65.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Print Page