Summary
A 32-year-old Head Constable of the Railway Protection Force drowned when a State Road Transport Corporation bus, driven rashly and negligently, fell into the Chenab. His widow and children sought more compensation than the Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had awarded. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. Applying Pranay Sethi, which approved Sarla Verma, it added 50% for future prospects to the deceased's actual income, deducted one-third for personal expenses, kept the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Although the Corporation had not appealed, the Court would not ignore the Constitution Bench's limits: spousal consortium was capped at Rs 40,000, and the High Court's award for 'love and affection' was replaced by parental consortium of Rs 40,000 per child. Net enhancement: Rs 10,29,260.
Issues
- Whether the compensation awarded for the death of a 32-year-old permanent employee was just, in particular as to future prospects and the conventional heads under Pranay Sethi.
- Whether, in an appeal by the claimants alone, the Court could correct awards under 'loss of consortium' and 'loss of love and affection' that exceeded or departed from Pranay Sethi.
Provisions considered
- Sections 166 and 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Just compensation was re-assessed by adding future prospects, deducting personal expenses and applying the conventional heads fixed by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21)
Held
- For a deceased below 40 in permanent employment, 50% of actual salary must be added for future prospects; though the High Court's judgment preceded Pranay Sethi, that conclusion only approved the earlier position in Sarla Verma. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- With three dependants one-third is deducted for personal expenses, and the multiplier of 16 for the deceased's age group was correctly applied. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Rs 15,000 each is payable for loss of estate and funeral expenses, which had wrongly been denied. (¶ 13)
- Even without an appeal or cross-objection by the respondent, the Court, while relying on Pranay Sethi to enhance compensation, would not ignore its binding limits: spousal consortium is restricted to Rs 40,000, and 'love and affection' is not a permissible head, but parental consortium of up to Rs 40,000 per child is admissible. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs 10,29,260 payable by the Road Transport Corporation within eight weeks, failing which with 6% interest from the date of filing of the appeal; no costs.