Summary
In a motor accident death claim for a 45-year-old woman who received a family pension and worked as a homemaker, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,96,761 to Rs.13,82,500: monthly income taken at Rs.7,000 (family pension plus notional homemaker wages), 25% future prospects added, multiplier 14 applied on the post-mortem age, a 1/4th deduction made, and consortium awarded to each of the five claimants.
Issues
- What monthly income should be attributed to the deceased, who received a family pension and also rendered services as a homemaker.
- Whether the age of the deceased should be taken from the post-mortem report (45 years) or inferred from assumed societal norms, and which multiplier follows.
- Whether future prospects are to be added for a homemaker and at what rate.
- What amounts are payable under the conventional heads of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, and what deduction is to be made for personal expenses.
Provisions considered
- Compensation for death (Act generally), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The Court did not construe a particular section; it reminded itself that the Act is beneficial and welfare legislation and that its duty is to award 'just compensation', computing the award within the Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi framework. (¶¶ 10, 14)
Held
- The monthly income of the deceased had to include the whole family pension actually received (Rs.5,137, inclusive of dearness and medical allowance) together with the notional wages of a homemaker, which the High Court had reasonably taken at Rs.2,500; the total of Rs.7,637 was rounded off to Rs.7,000. (¶ 11)
- The age recorded in the post-mortem report is a scientific assessment and, in the absence of material to the contrary, is to be accepted; a 15-year gap between the deceased mother-in-law (45) and the daughter-in-law claimant (30) is not unrealistic given marriage norms of the 1970s. Taking the age as 45, the multiplier is 14. (¶ 11)
- Loss of consortium under Pranay Sethi (Rs.40,000 with 10% escalation every three years), read with Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram as covering spousal, parental and filial consortium, is payable to each of the five claimants at Rs.48,000, i.e. Rs.2,40,000 under loss of love and affection; no separate amount is payable for loss of care and guidance of minors as that is subsumed. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Following Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co., a homemaker's skills in caring for the family would only have been enhanced by time, so future prospects are to be added; the Court assessed them at 25% bearing in mind Pranay Sethi, noting that the MACT and the High Court had ignored this head altogether. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The deduction for personal expenses was taken at 1/4th as per Sarla Verma rather than the 1/5th applied by the courts below; funeral and transportation expenses were raised to Rs.20,000 and Rs.20,000 awarded for loss of estate, bringing the total to Rs.13,82,500. (¶¶ 12, 15)
- Interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, as granted by the High Court, was maintained because the accident occurred in 2003, with interest to run pro rata where interim or part payments had already been made. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside; compensation enhanced to Rs.13,82,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation, payable within two months (pro rata for amounts already paid); no order as to costs.