Summary
Claimants' appeal against the High Court's modification of a motor accident compensation award for the death of a 35-year-old woman riding pillion. The Court affirmed the finding of rash and negligent driving, held that the deceased's husband, having no specified employment, could not be assumed to be wholly non-dependent so the family was one of four and the deduction for personal expenses was 1/4, applied 40% future prospects under Pranay Sethi, extended loss of consortium to the two children, restored the proven medical expenses and disallowed a separate head for love and affection, re-determining the compensation at Rs 17,84,766.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider called for interference.
- Whether the able-bodied husband of the deceased could be treated as a non-dependant so as to fix the deduction for personal expenses at 1/3 for a family of three.
- What percentage of future prospects applies to a self-employed deceased aged 35.
- Whether loss of consortium is confined to the spouse or extends to the children, and whether a separate amount for loss of love and affection can be awarded in addition.
- Whether the Supreme Court could enhance components of the award when the claimants had not appealed against the Tribunal's award.
Held
- The High Court's finding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, whose owner was indemnified by the insurer, was affirmed; no reason was found to differ from it. (¶ 4)
- Where no employment of the husband of the deceased is specified, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on her income. He counts as a dependant along with the two children, so the family comprises four and the deduction for personal expenses is 1/4, not 1/3 as fixed by the Tribunal and High Court. (¶¶ 5, 7, 9)
- For a self-employed deceased below 40 years, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi limits the addition for future prospects to 40%. The High Court was right to delete the 50% allowed by the Tribunal, but 40% had to be granted; the multiplier of 16 for age 35 was appropriate. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Following New India Assurance v. Somwati, loss of consortium is not restricted to the spouse and must also be awarded to the children; each child was granted Rs 40,000 in addition to spousal consortium. Once loss of consortium is awarded there is no scope for a separate award for loss of love and affection. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Medical expenses accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of bills had to be granted. Transport and funeral expenses and loss of estate were kept at Rs 15,000 each as fixed by the High Court. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Although the claimants had not challenged the Tribunal's award, the Court recomputed the compensation on the principle that what is to be awarded is 'just compensation' as laid down by the Constitution Bench. The enhancement was confined to pro-rata amounts under the conventional heads while the future-prospects percentage and the personal-expenses deduction were reduced, and the modified award did not exceed what the Tribunal had granted. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal disposed of with modifications; compensation re-determined at Rs 17,84,766 (loss of dependency Rs 16,12,800, loss of consortium Rs 1,20,000, medical expenses Rs 21,966, transport and funeral expenses Rs 15,000, loss of estate Rs 15,000); pending applications disposed of.