LexSHASHIKALA & ORS. versus GANGALAKSHMAMMA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 1 SHASHIKALA & ORS. v. GANGALAKSHMAMMA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2836 of 2015) MARCH 13, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 168 - Fatal accident - Deceased was self employed 45 years old man - Compensation - Computation of- Courts below computed A B c the compensation without making addition towards the future prospects- On appeal for enhancement of the compensation o by plea for addition towards future prospects - Held: Per Banumathi, J: Compensation awarded to the claimants enhanced, without adverting to the issue whether additions are to be made towards future prospects or not- Per Gopa/a Gowda, J: While enhanced compensation is agreed to, the E issue of addition towards future prospects a/so needs to be considered - The matter to be referred to larger Bench to determine the issue. Judicial Discipline - Reference of case to larger F Bench by Division Bench of Supreme Court - For deciding the issue in respect of which conflicting views were given by two Three-Judge Benches - Held: Per Gopa/a Gowda, J. Two-judge Bench cannot refer the matter directly to larger Bench of five Judges- The correct course would be to place G the matter before a Bench of co-ordinate strength i.e. three- judge Bench. Referring the matter, on limited issue to larger Bench, H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A theCourt HELD: Per R. BANUMATHI, J.: 1. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins the courts/tribunals to make award determining the amount of compensation B which appears to be just and reasonable. The wide amplitude of such power does not empower the tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed as a source of profit nor as a windfall to the persons C affected. Determination of compensation has to be fair and reasonable and acceptable by the legal standards. [Para 15] (14-D-F] 2. Without adverting to the issue whether D additions are to be made towards future prospects or not, as it is obligatory on the part of the Court to award just compensation, considering the age of the deceased and the nature of business the deceased was doing, his income as stated in the income tax return for the year E 2006-07 i.e. Rs. 2,02,911/- may be taken as the income of the deceased. Ten per cent of the said amount i.e. Rs.20,290/- is to be deducted towards income tax and the remaining comes to Rs.1,82,620/-. The amountto be F deducted for professional tax is Rs.2,400/- and after deducting the same, the balance comes out to Rs. 1,80,220/-. The income from the house property for the year 2006-07 is shown to be Rs.20,000/- and after deducting the same, the net amount comes to G Rs.1,60,220/-. Deducting 1/41h (one/fourth) towards personal expenses which comes out to Rs.40,055/-, the loss of dependency/loss of contribution is arrived at Rs.1,20, 165/- per annum. The High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted H SHASHIKALAAND ORS. v. GANGALAKSHMAMMA 3 multiplier 14. Total loss of dependency is calculated at A Rs.16,82,3101-(Rs.1,20,1651-x 14). (Paras 16and17] (15- B-E, G] 3. Substantial compensation is to be awarded towards conventional damages like loss of consortium, B loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor children and Rs.25,0001-towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,0001- towards loss of estate totalling to C Rs.2,50,0001-. Thus, the compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced to Rs.19,32,310/-. [Para 18] [16-C- E] Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65: 2013 (2) SCR 706; Sar/a Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR 1098; Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 421: 2012 (3) SCR 1178; Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir And Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 280: 2009 (8) SCR 829; Ningamma and Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd (2009) 13 SCC 710: 2009 (8) SCR 683; Rajesh And Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54: 2013 (5) SCR 961; Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors (2013) 9 SCC 166: 2013 (7) SCR 276- relied on.· D E F G Per V. GO PALA GOWDA, J.: (Partly dissentin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.