S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS. versus M. DINAKAR & ANR

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS.
v.
M. DINAKAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-4689 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166, 168 – Compensation –
Enhancement of – Accident occurred which resulted into death of
wife of appellant – Claim was lodged by the appellant before the
Tribunal – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 36,92,350/- and
as at the time of accident the deceased was unemployed, the monthly
income of deceased was calculated on basis of her husband’s income
(following the judgment of Arun Kumar Agrawal and anothers) –
However, the High Court considered the deceased’s salary in a job
where she was engaged three years prior to the accident as the
basis for quantifying the pecuniary loss to be awarded and reduced
the amount of compensation to Rs. 32,82,090/- – On appeal, held:
There is a long time gap between the time she was in employment
and the occurrence of the accident thus her salary would be an
unreliable guide for fixing her notional income – The Tribunal had
rightly followed the course laid down in the case of Arun Kumar
Agrawal – Deduction in pecuniary loss by the High Court not
correct – The deduction of 1/3rd of determined income of the
deceased towards personal expenses is valid on the basis of the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma – Loss of
future prospect was not considered by the Tribunal and the High
Court to arrive at the quantum of pecuniary loss – Further, loss of
love and affection is comprehended in the loss of consortium, High
Court not justified to award compensation towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head – Considering the aforementioned
factors, the compensation was set to Rs. 46,17,350/- – Appeals
allowed.
Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. and Others. [(2010) 9 SCC 218 : [2010]
9 SCR 303 – relied on.
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 288
288
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation  and  Another (2009) 6 SCC 121;
Rajendra Singh and Others v. National Insurance
Company Limited and Others [(2020) 7 SCC 256 :
[2020] 6 SCR 579 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 303
relied on
Para 4
[2020] 6 SCR 579
referred to        Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-
4689 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CMA Nos. 3017 of 2014 and cross appeal
CMA No. 3313 of 2014.
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Arindam Ghosh, Karthik Jayshankar,
Prakash Baghel, Advs. for the Appellants.
Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants before us are the claimants in an action for
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act). An
accident had occurred on 28th February 2011 at about 10:45 A.M., which
resulted in death of one Bala Babitha, a 37 year old lady, and caused
injuries to her husband and her minor daughter. The first appellant is the
husband of the deceased. The second and the third appellants are their
children, who were minors by age at the point of time the accident
occurred. The fourth appellant is the mother of the deceased. The first
appellant and the third appellant alongwith the deceased were travelling
in an auto rickshaw from Velachery to Adambakkam in the city of Chennai,
which was hit by a vehicle (bearing registration no. TN- 04-W-6189).
The respondent no. 1 was the owner of that vehicle. The second
respondent is the insurance company, whose policy covered the offending
vehicle.
S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS. v. M. DINAKAR & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
3. Claim was lodged by the appellants under Section 166 of the
1988 Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (the
Tribunal). Before the Tribunal, rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle was proved, and that finding was not upset in appeal by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in its judgment delivered on 27th February
2018. The present appeals arise from that judgment. The Tribunal
awarded compensation in favour of the appellant no.1 for a sum of
Rs.4,77,100/-. The minor daughter (appellant no.3) of the deceased and
the first appellant was awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,000/-. The
quantum of compensation on account of death of said Bala Babitha was
com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.