SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS. versus ASHRAF ALI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
   [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1009
1009
SMT. MEENA PAWAIA & ORS.
v.
ASHRAF ALI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6724 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.168 – Just compensation – Fatal
accident – Victim-deceased aged 21-22 years at the time of accident
and Third year student in civil engineering – When the deceased
died at the young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time
of death/accident, the income for the purpose of determining the
future economic loss is always done on the basis of guesswork
considering many circumstances namely the educational
qualification and background of the family, etc. – Deceased was
having a bright future studying in the Third year of civil engineering,
his income ought to have been considered at least Rs.10,000/- per
month, more particularly considering the fact that the labourers/
skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month even under the
Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012 – Once such an amount is
arrived at he shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/
future rise in income – It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of
living would also affect such a person – Thus, even in case of a
deceased who was not serving at the time of death and had no
income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to
future prospects by adding future rise in income.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Multiplier – Deceased at the time
of accident was aged between 21-22 years – Therefore, the multiplier
has to be adopted/applied considering the age of the deceased and
not the age of the parents thus, multiplier 18 would apply.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Entitlement of claimants to Just
Compensation – The claimants are entitled to just compensation –
Merely because in the execution proceedings they might have
accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be as full
and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants
to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held
to be entitled to – As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent
Act and the claimants are entitled to just compensation. As such,
the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased at the time of accident was aged
21-22 years and that he was a 3rd year student in civil engineering.
The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/-
per month for the purpose of awarding compensation under the
head of future economic loss. However, by the impugned
judgment, the High Court reduced the compensation and
determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.
Awarding the future economic loss to the claimants considering
the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- is not sustainable at all.
Even the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per
month under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012. As the
deceased was studying in the 3rd/4th semester of civil engineering,
he cannot be considered worse than the labourers/skilled
labourers. Therefore looking to the educational qualification and
the family background, the deceased was having a bright future
studying in the 3rd year of civil engineering, the income of the
deceased at least ought to have been considered at least
Rs.10,000/- per month, more particularly considering the fact that
the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/- per month
even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012.
[Para 8][1014-G-H; 1015-A-B, D-E]
2. In case of a deceased, who was not earning and/or not
doing any job and/or self employed at the time of accident/death,
his income is to be determined on the guesswork looking to the
circumstances narrated. Once such an amount is arrived at he
shall be entitled to the addition over the future prospect/future
rise in income. It cannot be disputed that the rise in cost of living
would also affect such a person. As observed by this court in the
case of Pranay Sethi, the determination of income while computing
compensation has to include future prospects so that the method
will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as
postulated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case
of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
annual increment and/or in c

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