New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vinish Jain And Ors Etc Etc
- SCC(2018) 3 SCC 619
- Neutral2018 INSC 196
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the difference in compensation awarded by a lower court and that which would result from applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi falls within permissible limits (approximately 4-5%), the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the award under its special leave jurisdiction. Where a deceased claimant was 78 years old with adult sons possessing independent income sources and granddaughters primarily dependent on their father rather than their grandfather, a deduction of one-third for personal and other expenses is inadequate; a deduction of 50% is warranted to reflect the limited actual dependency of the claimants. An award of Rs.50,000 per claimant for loss of love and affection is excessive; claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000 in aggregate for love and affection and funeral expenses combined, in accordance with Pranay Sethi.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
‘NONREPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (C) NO(S).13931 OF 2017
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. …. Petitioner (s)
Versus VINISH JAIN AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (C) NO(S).13932 OF 2017
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. …. Petitioner (s)
Versus VINISH JAIN AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2445 OF 2018 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S).13933 OF 2017)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. …. Appellant (s)
Versus YOGESH JAIN AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta J.
1. These three cases are directed against the judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.02.23 17:57:18 IST Reason:
dated 03.10.2016 whereby three appeals under the Motor
Vehicles Act were disposed of by the High Court. 2
SLP (C) NO(S).13931 OF 2017
2. This case is filed by Vinish Jain and others. It relates to
death of one Alok Jain. Even as per the learned counsel for
the petitioner if the judgment rendered by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi1 is applied, the difference in compensation is
just about 5%.
3. This Court normally does not interfere where variation in
the compensation is within the permissible limits. Therefore,
the special leave petition is dismissed.
SLP (C) NO(S).13932 OF 2017
4. This case filed by Vinish Jain and others relates to death
of one Kalpana Jain. Even as per the learned counsel for the
petitioner if the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) is applied, the
difference in compensation is just about 4%.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3
5. This Court normally does not interfere where variation in
the compensation is within the permissible limits. Therefore,
the special leave petition is dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP (C) NO(S).13933/2017
6. Leave granted.
7. This case relates to death of one A.P. Jain. He was 78
years of age. At the time of death, his annual income was
assessed at Rs.3,64,500/. The deduction made for personal
expenses at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact that the
claimants are his two major sons and two granddaughters.
The major sons have their own source of income and were not
dependent on the deceased and the two granddaughters are
primarily dependent on their father and not on their
grandfather. We are also of the view that the High Court has
erred in granting Rs. 50,000/ as loss of love and affection to
each of the claimants. The total compensation granted is
Rs.14,39,980/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum.
4
8. We feel that 50% deduction is called for and if this factor
is taken into consideration then the loss of dependency is
Rs.1,82,250/ and if multiplier of 5 is used, the compensation
works out to Rs.9,11,250/. In addition, the claimants would
be entitled to Rs.70,000/ for love and affection and funeral
expenses etc. as per the judgment of this Court passed in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the amount of
compensation is reduced to Rs.9,81,250/ along with interest
awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Stay granted vide order dated 24.04.2017 stands
vacated. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)
…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi February 23, 2018
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