Summary
Motor accident claim by the dependants of a 32-year-old agriculturist who also ran milk-vending and tractor-hiring businesses. The MACT had assessed his notional income at Rs.10,000 per month and the High Court reduced it to Rs.8,000; the Supreme Court held that both courts ignored the evidence of a Rs.4,20,000 agricultural loan, banana-crop sales of over Rs.5,00,000 in a few months, a family tractor and monthly milk payments, fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000, raised interest to 7.5% per annum and re-computed the compensation at Rs.35,66,600.
Issues
- Whether the MACT and the High Court correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000 and Rs.8,000 respectively, when evidence of agricultural loans, crop sales, a family tractor and milk-vending income was on record.
- What monthly income should be taken for computing loss of dependency, and at what rate interest should run on the compensation.
Provisions considered
- Compensation to dependants of a person killed in a motor accident (no specific section discussed), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The Court restated that the Act is a beneficial and forward-looking welfare legislation concerned with providing stability and continuity in the lives of the dependants, and on that footing refused to confine the deceased's income to the notional figures taken by the MACT and the High Court. It applied the multiplier method, 40% addition for future prospects, one-fifth deduction for personal expenses and the conventional heads as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, and modified only the income and interest components of the award. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Held
- Where uncontroverted evidence shows that the deceased was the driving force behind a joint family's agriculture, milk-vending and tractor-hiring businesses (a bank loan of Rs.4,20,000 for agriculture, a wholesale buyer deposing to banana sales exceeding Rs.5,00,000 within a few months, a tractor in the family's name and passbook entries of Rs.6,000 per month from a milk co-operative), a tribunal cannot assess his income at a bare notional figure without giving reasons. Both the MACT (Rs.10,000) and the High Court (Rs.8,000) erred in assessing the income on the lower side. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The advanced age of the deceased's parents, who were themselves claimants, supports the presumption that the deceased carried the major responsibility for physically strenuous family businesses; the existence of a brother does not justify treating the income as a bare notional amount. (¶ 11)
- The claimants' figure of Rs.40,000 per month was not borne out either; on an overall view of the record the deceased's monthly income was reasonably fixed at Rs.15,000. The other heads applied by the High Court conformed to Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi and were left undisturbed. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Compensation re-computed at Rs.35,66,600: income Rs.15,000 plus 40% future prospects (Rs.21,000), less one-fifth personal expenses (Rs.16,800), multiplier 16 (Rs.32,25,600 loss of dependency), Rs.33,000 under conventional heads and Rs.3,08,000 for loss of consortium; interest enhanced from 6% to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; High Court order modified by taking the deceased's monthly income as Rs.15,000 instead of Rs.8,000 and interest at 7.5% per annum instead of 6%, total compensation Rs.35,66,600; parties to bear their own costs; application to file additional documents allowed.