Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bebi Giri vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.8768 OF 2018)
Bebi Giri …Appellant
v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The appellant is the mother of one Amit Giri (‘the deceased’). On 22nd September 2011, when the deceased was travelling by auto rickshaw, a truck insured with the respondent – Insurer, gave a dash to the auto rickshaw. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Initially, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 was filed by the appellant and one Ashok, the father of the deceased, who died during the pendency of the claim petition.
3. The age of the deceased was about twenty-two years at the Signature Not Verified time of the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2022.09.13 17:09:50 IST Reason: Tribunal (the Tribunal) proceeded on the basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,422/- per month being the 1 minimum wages payable at the relevant time. The Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.7,14,448/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The appellant filed an appeal for enhancement before the High Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we find that the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is not consistent with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors1. The relevant conclusions of the Constitution Bench read thus:
“59.In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.1.........
59.2.........
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased 1 2017(16)SCC680 2 was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
5. The Tribunal found that the appellant was self- employed. In terms of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi1, the High Court ought to have added 40 per cent on account of future prospects of increase in the income. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 18, as held in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2 The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The accident is of the year 2011. Therefore, the loss of estate and funeral expenses will have to be taken at Rs.15,000/- each. The 2 2009(6)SCC121 3 appellant being the mother of the deceased, is not entitled to the amount payable on account of loss of consortium.
6. The monthly income will have to be taken at Rs.8,990/- by adding 40 per cent to the minimum wages taken at Rs.6,422/- per month. In terms of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma2, one half of the amount will have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, by taking multiplier of 18, the total amount payable will be Rs.9,70,920/- (Rs.4495×12×18). In addition, the appellant will be entitled to the total amount of Rs.30,000/- against conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,00,920/-.
7. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent shall pay balance amount of Rs.2,86,482/- to the appellant with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of three months from today.
……………………………………………………J. (Sanjay Kishan Kaul) ……………………………………………………J. (Abhay S. Oka) New Delhi;
September 6, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8768/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07- 2017 in MACA No. 527/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) BEBI GIRI Petitioner(s) VERSUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Respondent(s) IA No. 41884/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Date : 06-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file] 5