Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) Through Its Lrs.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.26871 of 2019)

RAHUL GANPATRAO SABLE …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

LAXMAN MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27394 of 2019)

JUDGMENT

Vikram Nath, J.

S.L.P.(C) No.26871 of 2019:

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the injured-

claimant assailing the correctness of the judgment

Signature Not Verified and order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the High Court Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.07.06 16:43:11 IST Reason: in First Appeal No.1162 of 2008 awarding additional

1 compensation of Rs.8,66,787/-, over and above, the

compensation of Rs.7,21,895/- awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated

06.02.2008 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.59

of 2000.

3. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5 lakhs as overall

compensation and in addition, actual medical

expenses incurred Rs.2,21,895/- making a total

figure of Rs.7,21,895/-. On appeal, the High Court

enhanced the overall compensation to

Rs.10,71,000/-. It also enhanced the actual medical

expenses incurred to Rs.3,42,682/-. Further, it

awarded Rs.1 lakh under the head pain and suffering

and Rs.75,000/- under the head future medical

expenses, thus, making a total of Rs.15,88,682/-.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has

been preferred for seeking compensation under

several heads, where no amount has been awarded by

the Tribunal or the High Court and also for

2 enhancement of the amounts awarded by the

Tribunal and the High Court under different heads.

5. The appellant on the fateful day i.e. 27.04.1994

suffered severe injuries resulting into permanent

disability to the extent of 60% as held by the High

Court and 85% as declared under the Right to

Disability Act, 2016. The major injuries suffered are

(i) compression fractures of seven cervical vertebra. (ii)

Paraplegia (iii) loss of bladder function (v) loss of

erection of penis and (vi) loss of bowel control.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellant are summarized hereunder:

(1) The High Court committed an error in deducting

50% towards loss of income considering that there

was 60% permanent disability when, in fact, the

disability suffered by the appellant actually resulted

into 100% loss of income as the appellant had been

rendered completely unfit for working and earning. It

was submitted that this Court has already in a series

3 of decisions held that even though the victim may

have survived the accident but the nature of disability

may result into 100% loss of earning and, therefore,

it is not correct to hold that where the disability is

60%, the loss of income should be reduced by 50%.

Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this

Court in Lalan D. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd.1.

7. The claim of the appellant that considering his

merit, he would have easily earned Rs.25,000/- per

month, has not been accepted by the High Court for

no justifiable reason and deduction of Rs.10,000/-

has been unnecessarily made treating the income of

the appellant to be Rs.15,000/- per month. This

figure has been reduced by the High Court on the

ground of uncertainties in life. According to the

learned counsel, the said reasoning is fallacious in

1 (2020) 9 SCC 805

4 view of the judgment of this Court in case of Leela

Gupta Vs. State2, wherein, it was held that the

multiplier takes into consideration, the uncertainties

of life and, therefore, there should not be any further

deduction on that account. Learned counsel further

relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Ashivinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ram3

fixing the income of 19 years old medical student to

be Rs.25,000/- per month.

8. The next submission advanced is that the High

Court erred in deducting 50% amount towards

personal expenses. The submission is that it is not a

case of death, but it is a case of injury and, as such,

there was no question of any deduction towards

personal expenses. Once again, reference was made

to the judgment of this Court in Lalan D. (supra).

2 (2010) 12 SCC 37 3 (2015) 2 SCC 180 5

9. The next argument advanced relates to wrong

application of multiplier of 17. The admitted age of the

appellant-injured was 19 years at the time of the

accident. In the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation4 duly approved by the

Constitution Bench judgment in the case of National

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi5, it has

been held that multiplier of 18 should be used for age

groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25.

10. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon

the judgment of this Court in the case of Chaus

Tausif Almiya etc. Vs. Memon Mohammad Umar

Anwarbhai and others passed in Civil Appeal

Nos.1241-1242 of 2023 claiming compensation for

attendant charges and also towards future medical

expenses and loss of marriage prospects.

4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6

11. Lastly, it was claimed that the amount of Rs.1

lakh granted by the High Court under the head pain

and suffering was too less and deserves to be suitably

enhanced.

12. In response, learned counsel for the respondent

no.6 (Insurance Company), submitted that the High

Court had correctly decided the appeal and enhanced

the compensation after considering all questions and

issues involved and the material available on record.

It may be noted here that no appeal has been

preferred by the Insurance Company, as such, the

other issues regarding the accident and the liability

etc. have attained finality and the only issue before us

is regarding award of further compensation under

different heads and enhancement under some of the

heads where amount has been awarded.

13. Having considered the submissions and having

perused the record, we now deal with each of the

issues raised.

7 Disablement resulting in 100% loss of income.

14. The five injuries which are permanent in nature

apparently make him unfit for any employment even

though the disability may be 60% or 85%. The

compression fractures of seven cervical vertebra

resulting into Paraplegia and further loss of bladder

function make it absolutely impossible for a person to

work and be gainfully employed. Considering the

nature of disability, loss of income is, thus, held to be

100% and not 50% as held by the High Court.

Uncertainties of life.

15. The High Court deducted 1/3rd towards

uncertainties of life, but this has been disapproved in

the case of Leela Gupta (supra) as the same is

covered while applying the multiplier. Therefore, this

deduction by the High Court is held to be incorrect

and no deduction should be made for uncertainties in

8 life. We hold accordingly. The income is thus held to

be Rs.25,000/- per month.

Deduction towards personal expenses.

16. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation

towards personal expenses. The present case being

not of death and the claim not being made by the

dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the

accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent

disability, there could not be any justification for

deduction of personal expenses. We do not approve

the said deduction in view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Lalan D. (supra).

Multiplier.

17. Considering the admitted age of the appellant to

be 19 years at the time of the accident in view of the

judgment in the case of Sarla Vema (supra), the

multiplier to be applied would be 18 and not 17. It is

held accordingly.

9 Attendant expenses.

18. Considering the nature of injuries and the

permanent disabilities suffered by the appellant, he

would require 24 hours help/assistance of an

attendant. In view of the judgment of this Court in the

case of Chaus Tausif Almiya (surpa), which had

similar facts regarding disability, we award a

compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- towards this head.

Future Medical Expenses.

19. No compensation has been awarded under the

said heading. Medical expenses would continue all his

life. Regular consultation and daily medication would

require expenses. Once again considering the

judgment of this Court in the case of Chaus Tausif

Almiya (supra), we award a compensation of

Rs.9,72,000/- towards future medical expenses by

applying the multiplier of 18.

10 Loss of Marriage prospects.

20. No compensation has been awarded under the

above head. Considering the nature of injuries duly

approved and certified, the appellant would be

entitled to compensation under loss of marriage

prospects. Again, relying upon the judgment of this

Court in the case of Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we

award a fixed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the

said head.

Pain and suffering.

21. Under the above head, High Court has awarded

Rs.1 lakh. The kind of pain, agony and suffering

undergone and also for future the amount awarded is

less. Considering the amount awarded in other cases

namely Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager6 , we

award a sum of Rs.3 lakhs under this head.

6 2022 (7) SCC 738

11 S.L.P.(C) No. 27394 of 2019:

22. Leave granted.

23. The present appeal assails the correctness of the

judgment and order of the High Court dated

23.09.2019 passed in First Appeal No.176 of 2008

partly allowing the appeal and enhancing the

compensation from Rs.5,82,628/- awarded by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Rs.9,29,474/- an

increase of Rs.3,46,846/-.

24. On the fateful day i.e. 27.04.1994, in an accident

between two vehicles around mid-night, the husband

of appellant no.1 and father of the other appellants,

namely Sri Ganpatrao Sakharam Sable succumbed to

the injuries. The appellants being his dependents

instituted claim for compensation before the Tribunal,

initially claiming Rs.5 lakhs and later on amending it

to Rs.10 lakhs. The Tribunal vide judgment dated

16.08.2007 awarded total amount of Rs.5,82,628/-

12 along with interest of 7.5%. The dependents-

appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court,

which was partly allowed and a further amount of

Rs.3,46,846/- was awarded.

25. The High Court considered the salary of the

deceased to be Rs.8100/- per month. It further added

an amount of Rs.20,000/- annually towards

assessment of examination papers. After deducting

1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, applying

the multiplier of 11, determined the total loss of

income at Rs.8,59,474/-. It further added an amount

of Rs.70,000/- as a consolidated figure under the

conventional heads. Thus, totaling the compensation

figure to Rs.9,29,476/- along with interest at the

same rate as was awarded by the Tribunal.

26. Before this Court, the following additional claims

have been made, which according to the learned

counsel for the appellants were either incorrectly

determined or not allowed by the High Court.

13

(a) Evidence was led to show that the deceased was

drawing a monthly salary of Rs.12,235/- on the date

of accident and was further additionally earning

Rs.25000/- annually by assessment of examination

papers. Further claim was made that from

01.01.1986, UGC pay-scale was applicable and 5th

Pay Commissions was made applicable from

01.01.1996, according to which, the salary of the

deceased would be Rs.14,940/- per month on

01.01.1996. The High Court had fixed the annual

salary at Rs.8100/- per month and additional income

of Rs.20,000/- per annum for assessment of

examination papers on mere whims and surmises, as

such, the salary and the additional income should be

considered as per the material available on record.

(b) It is next submitted that despite the settled legal

position as laid down by this Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra), 15% addition should be made for future

14 prospects, if the deceased was aged between 50-60

years at the time of the death.

(c) It is next submitted that the Tribunal as also the

High Court erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards

personal expenses despite the fact that there were five

dependents of the deceased. It is also submitted that

even if the injured-Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, one of the

sons was excluded still there would be four

dependents. Applying the law laid down in the case of

Sarla Verma (supra) duly approved by the

Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra), the deduction for personal expenses should

have been 1/4th and not 1/3rd.

(d) Towards loss of consortium, learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the High Court awarded

a meager amount of Rs.70,000/- as against

Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Relying upon the

recent judgment of this Court in the case of Janabai

15 Vs. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.7, which

further relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment

in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it was claimed

that separate amount towards loss of consortium to

each of the dependents should be awarded.

(e) The High Court had awarded a consolidated

amount of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads

which included not only loss of consortium but also

loss of estate and funeral expenses. According to the

learned counsel, compensation for loss of estate and

funeral expenses should be separately awarded and

relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of

Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses be awarded.

27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent no.6 (Insurance Company) has sought to

7 (2022) 10 SCC 512

16 justify the judgment of the High Court and the

compensation awarded by it as a fair and reasonable

compensation covering all heads admissible. It was

accordingly submitted that appeal be dismissed. It

may be noted here that no appeal has been preferred

by the Insurance Company, as such, the other issues

regarding the accident and the liability etc. have

attained finality and the only issue before us is

regarding award of further compensation under

different heads and enhancement under some of the

heads where amount has been awarded.

28. Having considered the submissions and having

perused the material available on record, our analysis

of the arguments advanced is as follows:

Loss of Income.

29. The appellants had produced the Accountant of

the Law College where the deceased was working. He

had given specific statements that at the time of his

death, the deceased was in the Pay Scale of Rs.3700-

17 5700 and his basic salary was Rs.5250/-. The total

salary payable to the deceased was Rs.12235/- in

accordance to the UGC scale applicable since

01.01.1986. According to him, the 5th Pay

Commission was also made applicable w.e.f.

01.01.1996. According to which, the Pay Scale of

Principal would be Rs.12000-18,300. He also

produced records relating to arrears of pay given to

the dependents of the deceased and also gave details

regarding the pension being paid to the family of the

deceased. In the cross examination, nothing fruitful

was elicited. The Courts below have relied upon the

statement of C.W.-1, widow of the deceased and also

Ext.52 for determining the monthly salary of the

deceased to be Rs.8100/-. We do not find any

discussion with regard to the statement of the

Accountant which was very specific that at the

relevant time, the salary drawn was Rs.12,235/- per

month. He had also stated that the UGC scale was

18 applicable and further that the 5th Pay Commission

was made applicable from 01.01.1996. The arrears of

pay etc. were given to the dependents accordingly and

the pension was also fixed accordingly. In view of the

above, we do not find any reason not to accept the

statement of the Accountant that the salary of the

deceased was Rs.12235/- on the date of the accident.

We, thus, hold accordingly.

30. In so far as the additional income on account of

assessment of examination papers is concerned,

C.W.-1, widow of the deceased, had specifically stated

that her husband was earning Rs.25,000/- per year

under that head. Once, it is accepted that the

deceased was additionally earning on account of

assessment of examination papers, then the entire

benefit as claimed should have been extended rather

than reducing it for no justifiable reason. We

accordingly take the additional income to be

Rs.25,000/- per year.

19 Future prospects.

31. Both the Courts below have not granted any

amount towards future prospects. The law is now well

settled by the Constitution Bench judgment in case of

Pranay Sethi (supra) that future prospects should be

added with the income depending upon the age of the

deceased. If the deceased was between the age of 50-

60 years which is the present case, there should be

an addition of 15% towards future prospects. We

accordingly allow an addition of 15% towards future

prospects.

Deduction towards personal expenses.

32. The courts below have deducted 1/3rd amount

towards personal expenses of the deceased. The

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

that such deduction is excessive and not in

accordance to the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra)

as approved by the Constitution Bench judgment in

the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). If the family

20 members are 2 or 3, then 1/3rd deduction is justified,

however, where the dependent family members were

4 to 6, the deduction should be 1/4th and in case of

more than 6 dependent family members, the

deduction should be 1/5th. In the present case, as the

dependent family members are at least 4, the

deduction should have been 1/4th. We hold

accordingly.

Towards loss of consortium.

33. In the present case, the MACT had granted a

meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of

consortium. However, the High Court granted a total

amount of Rs.70,000/- as consolidated amount under

all conventional heads, which included loss of

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In

the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Constitution Bench

of this Court had provided that all dependents should

be separately awarded towards loss of consortium and

had actually awarded Rs.40,000/- to each of the

21 dependents. Considering the same, an amount of

Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to each of the four

dependents towards loss of consortium.

Towards Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses.

34. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,500/- towards

loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral

expenses. The High Court had awarded a consolidated

amount of Rs.70,000/- under all conventional heads,

which we have already set aside above. We are of the

view that the amount awarded for loss of estate and

loss of funeral expenses is too less and accordingly

increase the same to Rs.15,000/- under both the

heads separately.

COMMON ORDER IN BOTH THE MATTERS:

35. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.

36. The Tribunal will calculate the amount afresh in

accordance to the amounts awarded by this order

22 within a month of production of this order before it.

Interest on the additional amount payable would be

7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition(s).

The amount so quantified shall be deposited within

two months of its determination by the Tribunal and

paid to the dependent/appellants according to law.

37. There shall be no order as to costs.

38. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

…………………………………..J. (B.R. GAVAI)

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH) NEW DELHI JULY 05, 2023

23