SMT. ANJALI & ORS versus LOKENDRA RATHOD & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 06-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 661
661
SMT. ANJALI & ORS.
v.
LOKENDRA RATHOD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 009014 of 2022)
DECEMBER 06, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.168 – Fatal accident – Just and
Fair Compensation – Claimants (the heirs and legal representative
of the victim-deceased) sought compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs –
Tribunal estimated the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 4000 and
allowed the claim of Rs. 6,24,000 with interest – High Court
increased monthly income of deceased to Rs. 5000 and awarded
compensation of Rs. 11,41,000 with interest – Hence instant appeal
– Held: The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave
error while estimating the deceased’s income by disregarding the
Income Tax Return (ITR) of the deceased – The ITR of deceased
reflected his annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/
- per month – Since the deceased is survived by the seven
dependents, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses for
deceased ought to be 1/5th only and not 1/4th as applied by the
Tribunal and High Court – Further, Tribunal erred by not making
any additions to future prospects of the deceased, whereas High
Court by placing reliance on Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi held that
since the deceased was under 40 years of age and was self-
employed, he is entitled to addition of future prospects of 40% of
his established income – There is no error in High Court’s reasoning
for adding 40% of the deceased’s income towards future prospects
– Further, Tribunal awarded meagre sums of Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.2,000/- towards conventional heads and funeral expenses,
respectively, whereas High Court while placing reliance on Pranay
Sethi awarded Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads and Rs.10,000/
- towards funeral expenses of the deceased – Although, High Court
was correct in placing reliance on Pranay Sethi, High Court erred
by not granting an increment of 10% on the conventional heads in
every three years as directed in the Pranay Sethi – A three-Judge
Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder
Kaur after considering Pranay Sethi awarded spousal consortium at
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
the rate of Rs.40,000/ and towards loss of parental consortium to
each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/- – The compensation under
these heads also needs to be increased by 10% – Thus, the spousal
consortium is awarded at Rs.44,000/ and towards parental
consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/ each is awarded to the three
children – Thus the total compensation payable to the Appellants is
Rs.25,91,388/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing
of the application till the date of payment of the compensation to
the appellants.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Beneficial Legislation – The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families –
s.168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’
which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed
grave error while estimating the deceased’s income by
disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The
appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009- 2010) of the
deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual income to be
Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. The deceased’s
annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per
month keeping in mind the deceased’s Income Tax Return for
the year 2009-2010. [Para 9][667-D-E, G]
2. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives
paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families.
Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just
compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation
of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
applicant/s. [Para 10][667-G-H; 668-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
3. Since the deceased is survived by the seven dependents,
the appropriate deduction for personal expenses for deceased
ought to be 1/5th only and not 1/4th as ap

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