SMT. SAVITA versus MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 25-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014) 3 S.C.R. 810 
SMT. SAVITA 
v. 
BINDAR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4001 of 2014) 
MARCH 25, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
C 
s. 166 -- Fatal motor accident - Compensation --Tribunal 
and High Court ignoring to award compensation towards future 
prospects -- Awarding meager amounts under heads --"loss 
of consortium" and "funeral expenses"- Held: At the time of 
fixing such compensation, court should not succumb to 
o niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation -- It is the 
duty of court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on 
account of accident with compensation so that the injured or 
dependants should not face vagaries of life on account of 
discontinuance of income earned by victim -- Therefore, it will 
E be the bounden duty of Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair 
and reasonable compensation considering the price index 
prevailing at the moment and judging the situation prevailing 
-- Compensation under the head "future prospects of 
deceased" to be calculated by adding 30% to monthly income 
F and by deducting 113 towards personal expenses --
Compensation under the heads "loss of consortium" and 
"funeral expenses" enhanced -- Interest to be paid @ 8% 
instead of 6% awarded by Tribunal from the date of 
application till payment -- Interest. 
G 
In a motor accident claim arising out of the death of 
a 26 year old victim, the Tribunal taking the notional 
annual income at Rs. 36,0001-, applying the multiplier of 
17 and deducting one third as personal expenses of 
H 
810 
SMT. SAVITA v. BINDAR SINGH & ORS. 
811 
deceased, allowed the compensation of Rs. 4,06,0001-
A 
besides Rs. 50001- for cremation, Rs. 50001- for loss of 
estate and Rs. 10,0001- as loss of consortiums with 6% 
interest. The High Court diminished the appeal of 
claimant. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In view of the decisions of this Court in 
Santosh Devi as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, it is the 
duty of the court to fix a just compensation. At the time 
B 
of fixing such compensation, the court should not C 
succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just 
compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of 
the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on 
account of the accident with the compensation so that 
the injured or the dependants should not face the D 
vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the 
income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the 
bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair 
and reasonable compensation considering the price 
index prevailing at the moment and judging the situation 
E 
prevailing at that point of time with reference to the 
settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing 
so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the 
claimant in the application for compensation with the 
prime object to assess the award based on the principle 
F 
that the award should be just, equitable, fair and 
reasonable compensation. [para 6] [817-E-H; 818-A] 
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & 
Ors. 2012 (3) SCR 1178 = (2012) 6 SCC 421; and Rajesh 
vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54 - relied on. 
G 
1.2 In the instant case, the Tribunal and the High 
Court have failed to consider the fact-situation, and 
without taking any pragmatic view and further without 
considering the price-index prevailing at the moment, 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 3 S.C.R. 
A they assessed the compensation ignoring the principle 
laid down by this Court in the recent decisions. The 
award. suffers from proper assessment of compensation 
awarded by the Tribunal, and granted by the High Court 
on the conventional heads, i.e., 'loss of consortium' to the 
a spouse, 'future prospects of the deceased' and further 
the sum awarded under the head 'funeral expenses', as 
the same cannot be said to be a just compensation. There 
should have been an endeavour on the part of the 
Tribunal as well as the High Court to consider the inflation 
c factor. [para 7) [818-8-E] 
Smt. Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 
(5) SCR 1098 = (2009) 6 SCC 121- referred to 
1.3 Accordingly, as has been pointed out by this 
D Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, this Court awards the 
compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' to the 
spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and 
funeral expenses as 1,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively. 
[para 7) [818-E-F]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.