NUTAN RANI AND ANR. versus GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 20-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
NUTAN RANI AND ANR.
v.
GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2018)
JULY 20, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –   s. 166 – Compensation – Award
of – Death in motor accident of 30 years old salesman having salary
of Rs.3,000 per month – Computation of income of the deceased –
Addition on account of future prospects – Deduction of one-third
towards personal expenditure – Propriety of – Held: While
computing income of the deceased, an addition of 40% on account
of towards future prospects, in view of the age of the deceased, is
warranted as also deduction of one-third towards personal expenses
is proper – High Court erred in not granting the benefit of future
prospects in computing the income of the deceased – Total
compensation payable to the legal heirs calculated accordingly.
A 30 years old salesman died in a motor vehicle accident
and his heirs were awarded compensation by the tribunal which
was enhanced by the High Court. In the instant appeal, issue
arose whether the High Court while computing the income of
the deceased was correct in not adding on account of future
prospects and deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal
expenditure.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court erred in not granting the benefit
of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased.
Having due regard to *National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay
Sethi’s case, an addition of 40% on account of towards future
prospects, in view of the age of the deceased, is warranted. The
deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is proper. The
total compensation payable to the appellants in terms of the
judgment in Pranay Sethi is computed as Rs.6,41,200/-. Interest
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 607
   607
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
is allowed on the said amount at 9 per cent per annum from the
date of the petition until payment. [Paras 6-8][609-D-F;
610-A-B]
*National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to.
 Case Law Reference
(2017) 16 SCC 680
    referred to
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No.  6639
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2011 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 1949 of 1998 (O&M).
Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Advs. for
the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Motor
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 commission
agent/salesman with a firm in Ludhiana.  The accident took place while
he was travelling in a bus belonging to the Chandigarh Transport
Undertaking. While he was alighting from the bus, it moved abruptly
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 tribunal, 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 at 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 awarded a total
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 1/3rd 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 1/3rd 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.