LexMUNNALAL JAIN AND ANOTHER versus VIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 207 MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER . .. v. VIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015) MAY 15, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166-Assessment of loss c. _ of dependency - Determination of just compensation - 30 year old self-employed bachelor died in motor accident - Deceased earning Rs. 120001- per month -Ascertaining the multiplier, addition towards futufe prospects and deduction on account of personal and living expenses - Held: D Deduction for personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor would ordinarily be 50%'!:. On facts, no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for deviation therefrom - As far as future prospects are concerned, in case of self- employed persons below 40 years, there must be addition of E 50% to the actual income while computing future prospects - In the instant case, deceased being of the age of 30 y~ars, 50% is the required addition to his actual income while . computing future prospects -·As far as multiplier is concerned, that is to be chosen with reference to age of the F deceased - On facts, deceased being aged between 26 to 30 years, multiplier applicable would be 17 - Accordingly, appellants-claimants (parents of the deceased) entitled to compensation of Rs. 18.36 lakhs towards loss of dependency G Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Computation of - Held: Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case -Formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines- For this very reason, 207 H 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A the Courts lodge caveat stating "ordinarily", "normally", "exceptional circumstances", etc., while suggesting the formula. Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and B another2013 (2) SCR 706: (2013) 9 SCC 65; Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (5) SCR 961: (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (5) SCR 1098: (2009) 6 SCC 121 - relied on. c D E Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited 2012 (3) SCR 1178: (2012) 6 SCC 421 - referred to " Case Law Reference 2012 (3) SCR 1178 referred to Para 6 2009 (5) SCR 1098 relied on. Para 8 2013 (2) SCR 706 relied on. Para 9 2013 (5) SCR 961 relied on. Para 11 CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2012 of the F High Court of Delhi in MAC. APP. 68712011. G Anuj Jain (For Yash Pal Dhingra) for the Appellants. Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Abhishek Kumar, Viresh B. Saharya for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. The never ending dispute on computation of H compensation under the MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 (hereinafter MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER v. VIPIN KUMAR 209 SHARMAAND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.] referred to as 'the Act'), is the subject matter of this appeal as A well. 3. In the absence of any statutory and a straight jacket formula, there are bound to be grey areas despite several attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines. B Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines for the computation of the compensation. That precisely is the reason the courts lodge a caveat stating "ordinarily", "normally", "exceptional circumstances", etc., while C suggesting the formula. 4. In the case before us, the appellants are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi in M.A.C.T. No. 736/2008. They are the parents of late D Satendra Kumar Jain, aged 30 years, who died in a motor accident on 12.07.2008. He was self-employed as Pandit. He was a bachelor. Hence, the claim by the parents. 5. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs.95,50,000.00. E The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,59,000.00 including loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.6,24,000.00 with [email protected] per cent from the date of institution of the petition. Dissatisfied, appellants approached the High Court of Delhi in MAC APP. 687 /2011 leading to the F impugned judgment. The High Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at Rs.12,61,800.00 with interest as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. 6. The High Court fixed the monthly income to G Rs.12,000.00 and added 30% towards future prospects relying on Santosh Devi v. Nation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.