In this case, an accident taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent. The father, brother and sister of the deceased claimed compensation under section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

The deceased was 24 years old, and was engaged in the business of manufacturing Namkeen products. The Claimants contended that the income of the deceased was L 15,000 per month. However, they were unable to produce evidence of the income of the deceased. The MACT took the income of the deceased to be that of an unskilled worker i.e. L 5,342 per month on the basis of the Notification dated 13.08.2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana prescribing minimum wages for different categories of work.

The MACT did not award any compensation to the brother of the deceased, as he could not be considered to be a dependent. Compensation was awarded to the aged father and the unmarried sister of the deceased, who were held to be dependents.

The father and sister of the deceased filed an Appeal against the order of the MACT before the Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The High Court found that the MACT had used the wrong principle for application of the multiplier. The multiplier ought to have been taken on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not of his father. The High Court re-assessed the compensation as follows:

Appeal in Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the Insurance Company filed the S.L.P. before Supreme Court, praying for setting-aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The principal grounds on which the S.L.P. has been filed by the Insurance Company are:

i. The High Court has erroneously awarded 50% towards Future Prospects, even though as per the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 : (2017) 16 SCC 680. only 40% could have been awarded.

ii. The deduction of the income of the deceased ought to have been made at 1/2 and not at 1/3rd, as he was a bachelor.

iii. The minimum wages of the deceased ought to have been taken at L 5,341 and not L 6,000 as that was the prevailing rate of minimum wages in Haryana at the time of the accident.

iv. The father and sister of the deceased could not be considered as dependants, and were not entitled to compensation. In the case of death of a bachelor, only the mother could be considered to be a dependant.

v. The grant of L 1,00,000 on account of loss of love and affection, and L 25,000 towards funeral expenses is erroneous. It was contended that only L 30,000 could have been awarded as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).

Analysis by the Court

While considering the issue, the court said that,

With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted towards Future Prospects. Future Prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:

i. the nature of the deceased’s employment; and

ii. the age of the deceased.

In the present case, it is claimed by the family of the deceased that he was engaged in making namkeen, and was earning a monthly income of about L 15,000 per month. However, no evidence was brought on record to establish the same. The MACT as well as the High Court assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wage of an unskilled worker. The nature of his employment being taken as a self-employed person. The deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident.

Hence, future Prospects ought to have been awarded at 40% of the actual income of the deceased, instead of 50% as awarded by the High Court. Hence, the judgment of the High Court on this issue is modified to that extent.

Issue of deduction

With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction should not 1/3rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This issue has been dealt with in paragraph 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and Respondent No. 2 an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependents of the deceased, and made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on this count.

Issue of Income

8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was L 15,000 per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income to be L 6,000, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at L 5,342. This finding is also not being interfered with.

8.4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceased him. The deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents.

8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded L 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and L 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of L 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to L 15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained.

8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra). The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of L 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of L 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.

In light of the above mentioned discussion, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts :-

Reference

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018)