Miss Lucy
← All judgments

K. Priyadharshini vs M/S Gammon India Ltd.

Supreme Court22 September 2022Sudhanshu Dhulia · Hemant Gupta

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards compensation for death with a deduction for future prospects as a percentage of the deceased's income, and the High Court on appeal increases the compensation by accepting Income Tax Returns as the basis for calculating average annual income but omits the future prospects component, the Supreme Court will restore the future prospects deduction at the percentage awarded by the Tribunal, as the future prospects component is a proper and established head of compensation under the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and should not be eliminated merely because the base income figure has been recalculated on better evidence.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6856 of 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 920 of 2021)

K. Priyadharshini & Ors. …Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Gammon India Limited & Anr. …Respondent(s)

ORDER

1. This appeal is of the Claimants which arises out of the

Impugned Judgement dated 30.01.2019 by the High Court of

Madras in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Chennai (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 23.02.2018.

2. The accident occurred on 15.01.2013 when S. Karthikeyan

(hereafter, deceased) was on his motorcycle on the Anna Salai

Road from North to South Direction. The vehicle being driven by

S. Karthikeyan, crashed with a crane, belonging to Respondent

No. 1 which was duly insured with Respondent No. 2 which

resulted in grievous injuries to the body of the deceased. He was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.10.15 12:25:48 IST taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries. The claim Reason:

petition was filed on behalf of the Appellants. The High Court as well as the Tribunal were of the opinion that the accident had

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane

belonging to Respondent No.1. The liability to pay compensation

was fixed on the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly the Claimants

were awarded Rs. 21,34,000/- by the MACT with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum.

3. An appeal was filed against the order of the MACT to the High

Court for enhancement of compensation. The High Court

increased the compensation payable to Rs. 86,07,840/- along with

7.5 % interest per annum by accepting that Income Tax Return

documents could be validly relied upon to calculate the ‘Average

Annual Income’ of the deceased, however, the High Court did not

award any amount on Future Prospects as has been laid down in

the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

and Ors. (2017 (16) SCC 680).

4. We think that the High Court, though, has been correct to the

extent of enhancing the compensation in the facts and

circumstances of the case, however, the Future Prospects

awarded by the MACT at 40% was rightly awarded and should

have been upheld by the High Court. Consequently, we enhance the compensation awarded to the deceased to

Rs.1,06,71,710/- along with 7.5% rate of interest per annum from

the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization.

Accordingly, we direct enhancement of the compensation as per

the following table: -

Particulars Amount Income after tax of the deceased for Rs. 6,65,823/- the years 2013-2014 Future Prospects 40% Personal Expenses 1/4th Multiplier 15 Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,06,71,710/-

5. The appeal stands disposed of. Pending application if any,

shall also stand disposed of in the above terms.

.…….............................J. [HEMANT GUPTA]

.…….............................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

New Delhi, September 22, 2022

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free