Raj Bala vs Rakeja Begam

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.7604 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.25127 of 2018)

RAJ BALA & ORS. …Appellants Versus RAKEJA BEGAM & ORS …Respondents

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This instant Appeal arises out of the final judgment

and order dated 24.08.2017 in F.A.O. No.5948 of 2013

passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh. The Appellants- claimants who are

respectively the wife and children of the victim of a motor

vehicle accident are dissatisfied with and aggrieved by

the said judgment and order and they filed this Appeal

seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2022.10.18 17:39:19 IST Reason: Page 1 of 17

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this

Appeal are as follows: -

On 11.08.2009, the deceased-Sudesh Kumar was

amongst the passengers in a bus bearing registration No.

JK-01Y-0432 of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport

Corporation, driven by the deceased husband of the first

Respondent, on its trip from Jammu to Srinagar. By about

13:20 hrs the bus fell into river Chenab and Shri Sudesh

Kumar drowned in the river. The Appellants alleged that

the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving and the consequential loss of control of the bus.

He was working as a Head Constable in the Railway

Protection Force (for short ‘the RPF’) and was then aged

32 years. Claiming the monthly income of the deceased

as Rs.20,000/- the Appellants filed the claim petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

short ‘the MV Act’) seeking a total compensation of Rs.50

lakhs, under different heads.

4. On appreciation of the evidence, the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘the Tribunal’) at Rewari

found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and

Page 2 of 17 negligent driving of Mohd. Rasid, the deceased husband

of the first Respondent. On the principle of vicarious

liability, the 4th Respondent – State Road Transport

Corporation the owner of the bus was held jointly and

severely liable with Mohd. Rasid, the husband of first

Respondent, to satisfy the award, quantified as

Rs.17,73,704/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum

from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the

amount.

5. The inadequacy of the compensation granted by the

Tribunal was assailed by the Appellants herein before the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana in F.A.O. No.5948 of

2018. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court re-

assessed the compensation and granted an additional

compensation of Rs.2,95,000/-. In fact, the total

compensation was re-assessed by the High Court as

Rs.20,68,704/- and the amount awarded by the Tribunal

was deducted by the High Court to arrive at the said

figure of Rs.2,95,000/-. The enhanced amount of

compensation viz. Rs.2,95,000/- was ordered to carry

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the

Page 3 of 17 claim petition till its realization. The Appellants still feel

that they are deprived of just compensation to be

awarded under Section 168 of the MV Act. Hence, the

captioned Appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the

learned counsel for the Respondent No.4, the Jammu and

Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation.

7. According to the Appellants the High Court had erred

in not adhering to what are recorded as conclusions in the

decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1,

inasmuch as the future prospects of the deceased was not

taken into account while quantifying the amount payable

under the ‘loss of dependency’ and also in deciding the

other heads of compensation payable. It is contended

that no amount whatsoever was granted under the head

‘loss of estate’ and towards ‘funeral expenses’. Per

contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

No. 4 would contend that the High Court, in the Appeal,

has granted just compensation contemplated under

Section 166 of the MV Act and, therefore, no further 1 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

Page 4 of 17 enhancement of compensation is warranted. It is further

contended that compensation under the head ‘loss of love

and affection’ is impermissible and under the head ‘loss

of consortium’ only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is

permissible, going by the decision in Pranay Sethi’s

case (supra).

8. We have carefully gone through the award passed by

the Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court whereby

the quantum of compensation was enhanced by Rs.

2,95,000/-, on re-assessment. They would reveal that

future prospects were not taken into account while fixing

the ‘multiplicand’. The evidence on record would reveal

that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his

death and he was working as a Head Constable in the

RPF. When that be the circumstances, there is absolutely

no justification for not reckoning the future prospects

which he would have had but for his untimely death, in

the light of the decision of this Court in Pranay Sethi’s

case (supra). In this context it is worthy to extract

conclusion No. (iii) in the said decision. It, in so far as it is

relevant, reads thus: -

Page 5 of 17

“While determining the income, an addition of

50% of actual salary to the income of the

deceased towards future prospects, where

the deceased had a permanent job and was

below the age of 40 years, should be made.”

9. True that the impugned judgment and order is dated

24.08.2017 and the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case

(supra) was rendered only on 31.10.2017. But then, the

fact is that conclusion No. (iii), as extracted above, is

nothing but approval of the position exposited in the

decision in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr.2 In the said circumstances, we

have no hesitation to uphold the contention of the

Appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased

is to be added while determining the income for

calculation purpose.

10. The monthly income of the deceased was taken as

Rs.13,817/- though the salary certificate for the month of

July, 2009 would reveal that he was drawing Rs.16,194/-.

Obviously, the income was taken as Rs.13,817/- after

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

Page 6 of 17 deducting allowances like TPT, ration money, hill

allowance and washing allowance. The Appellants did not

specifically state as to which among the said components

was wrongly deducted in the matter of such fixation.

11. Thus, going by the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case

(supra), when the deceased was below the age of 40

years and was having a permanent job for the purpose of

determination of income 50 % of his actual salary viz.,

Rs.13,817/- ought to have been added to the actual

income. At the same time, taking into account the

number of dependents in the family viz., three, 1/3 rd of

the monthly income was to be deducted towards the

personal and living expenses of the deceased. This is to

be done so, in view of the Constitution Bench decision in

Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) directing that for

determination of multiplicand, the deduction for personal

and living expenses shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to

32 of Sarla Verma’s case (supra). After such deduction

and re-assessment, the contribution to the family

(dependents) would be Rs.1,65,810/- per annum.

Page 7 of 17

12. Evidently, the Tribunal as also the High Court had

correctly identified the ‘multiplier’ with reference to the

age group of the deceased viz., between 30 and 35 years

as 16. This was done evidently, in terms of the decision

in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). This is only to be upheld

in view of conclusion number ‘(vi)’ recorded in Pranay

Sethi’s case (supra) whereunder it was held that

determination of the multiplier shall be as indicated in

Sarla Verma’s case (supra) read with paragraph 42 of

the judgment. On re-assessing the compensation for ‘loss

of dependency’, taking into account the multiplicand and

the multiplier as stated above it would be Rs. 26,52,864/-.

The Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.

17,68,704/-, virtually, under the head ‘total loss of

income’ after applying the multiplier method and the

same was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, under the

head of ‘loss of dependency’ the Appellants are entitled

to get an enhanced amount of Rs. 8,84, 160/- (26,52,864

– 17,68,704).

13. Obviously, no amount was granted towards ‘loss of

estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ by the Tribunal as also by

Page 8 of 17 the High Court. Going by the decision in Pranay Sethi’s

case (supra) under the conventional heads compensation

at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- each, is awardable towards

‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. Accordingly, Rs.

15,000/- each is awarded to the Appellants under the

head ‘loss of estate’ and the ‘funeral expenses.

14. It is a fact that no appeal or cross-objection has been

filed by the 4th Respondent despite the fact that the High

Court as per the impugned judgment and order granted

an amount of Rupees One lakh towards ‘loss of

consortium’ as against Rs. 5,000/- granted under that

head by the Tribunal and a further amount of Rs. 2 lakhs

(Rupees One lakh each to Appellants 2 and 3) under the

head ‘loss of love and affection’. Normally, in the absence

of appeal or cross- objection, grant of compensation

under any head need not be considered at the instance

such a Respondent. But, in this case such a course is not

advisable. This is because, we have reassessed

compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ and

further granted compensation for ‘loss of estate’ and

‘funeral expenses’, which are denied by the Tribunal and

Page 9 of 17 the High Court, referring to the Constitution Bench

decision of this Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

When the said decision was relied on for the grant

of/enhancement of compensation under the aforesaid

heads, we cannot lose sight of any glaring violation of the

said Constitution Bench. In short, we would not be

justified in ignoring the conclusions, issued in the form of

directions by the Constitution Bench in respect of a grant

of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ as

also regarding the impermissibility of granting

compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.

15. In this contextual situation, we think it only

appropriate to refer to the following observations made

by the Constitution Bench in paragraph 57 of the decision

in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra):-

“Section 168 of the Act deals with the

concept of “just compensation” and the same

has to be determined on the foundation of

fairness, reasonableness and equitability on

acceptable legal standard because such

determination can never be in arithmetical

Page 10 of 17 exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is

to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity

to arithmetical precision on the basis of

materials brought on record in an individual

case. The conception of “just compensation”

has to be viewed through the prism of

fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of

the principle of equitability. In a case of

death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot

expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the

compensation granted cannot be an apology

for compensation. It cannot be a pittance”.

16. In the light of the observations thus made and taking

note of the fact that the Constitution Bench in the said

decision took note of the decision in Rajesh and Ors. v.

Rajbir Singh and Ors.3 of a three Judge Bench holding

that towards ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of consortium’

and ‘loss of care and guidance’ for minor children Rs.

25,000/-, Rupees One lakh and Rupees One lakh each, are

to be granted and held the decision in Rajesh’s case

3 (2013) 9 SCC 54

Page 11 of 17 (supra) as not a binding precedent the matter requires

further consideration. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),

the Constitution Bench further held that towards ‘loss of

consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ compensation only at

the rate of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively is

grantable. So also, it was specifically held therein that

the head ‘loss of care and guidance’ for minor children did

not exist as a head of compensation. As per the

impugned judgment of the High Court, in place of Rs.

5,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of

consortium’, an amount of Rupees One lakh was granted.

Under the head ‘loss of love and affection’, which again

falls under the general head ‘loss of care and guidance’ of

minor children the Tribunal did not grant any amount.

However, the High Court has granted Rupees One lakh

each, to the minor Appellants 2 & 3 under the head ‘loss

of love affection’. In the contextual situation obtained in

view of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) it is only appropriate

to refer to the decision of this Court in M.A. Murthy v.

State of Karnataka and Ors.4 It was held therein that

normally the decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a 4 (2003) 7 SCC 517

Page 12 of 17 principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of

the stage of pendency thereof, because it should be

assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court

is, in fact, the law from inception.

17. In the instant case compensation towards ‘loss of

consortium’ Rupees One lakh was awarded by the High

Court besides granting an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees

one lakh each to the minor children) under the head of

‘loss of love and affection’. We are of the considered view

that in the light of the binding decision of the Constitution

Bench, which is already relied on by us to grant benefits

in favour of the Appellants, we are bound to interfere with

the grant of excess amount in respect of the

compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and the

grant of compensation under the non-existing head of

‘love and affection’.

18. We have already noted that towards ‘loss of

consortium’ an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was granted by the

Tribunal. Hence, in the light of the decision in Pranay

Sethi’s case (supra) over and above the said amount, the

Appellants are entitled only to get an additional

Page 13 of 17 compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. In other words, an amount

of Rs. 65,000/- granted in excess under the said head and

that has to be deducted.

19. While considering the question of interference with

the compensation granted by the High Court under the

head of ‘love and affection’ it is only appropriate to refer

to a two Judge-Bench decision of this Court in Jana Bhai

and Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. 5

Evidently, the two Judge Bench took note of the fact that

the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),

has recognized only three conventional heads where

compensation are awardable viz., ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of

consortium’ and the ‘funeral expenses’. Then, the two

Judge-Bench referred to the decision of this Court in

Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 6, which, in

turn, had virtually followed by three Judge Bench of this

Court in United Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur7. It was

held therein that as held in Magma’s case (supra) though

compensation under the head of ‘love and affection’ is

impermissible compensation for ‘loss of spousal

5 2022 ACJ 203 6 2018 ACJ 2782 7 2020 ACJ 2131

Page 14 of 17 consortium to wife and ‘loss of parental consortium to

children’ are admissible.

20. After having held thus, it was further held in Jana

Bhai’s case (supra) that the amount to be awarded for

‘loss of parental consortium’ should be in uniformity with

the amount fixed by the Constitution Bench in Pranay

Sethi’s case (supra). In other words, the amount

payable under the said head ‘parental consortium’ shall

not exceed Rs. 40,000/- qua a single child. In the said

circumstances, the amount of Rupees One lakh each

granted by the High Court to Appellants 2 & 3 under the

head ‘love and affection’ require to be deducted and at

the same time, Rs. 40,000/- each, out of it can be

granted, rather, adjusted against ‘parental consortium’

grantable to the minor children. Thus, an amount of Rs.

80,000/- has to be adjusted and can be granted to the

minor children viz., Appellants No. 2 & 3 and the balance

amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has to be deducted.

21. In the light of the aforesaid findings and conclusions

the compensation on account of the death of Shri Sudesh

Kumar is re-assessed as under: -

Page 15 of 17

Sl. Heads of Compensation Calculation/Amount No. awarded 1 Income (Salary) Rs.13,817/-

2 50 % addition to the actual Rs.13,817 + Rs.6,908.50 salary towards future = Rs.20,725.50/- prospects.

3 1/3rd deduction towards Rs.20,725.50/3 = personal and living Rs.6,908.50/- expenses. = Rs.13,817.50/- 4 Annual income Rs.13,817.50 x 12 = Rs. 1,65,810/- 5 Compensation for loss of Rs.1,65,810 x 16 dependency, after = Rs. 26,52,960/- identifying the multiplier as ‘16’ 6 Additional (enhanced) Rs. 26,52,960 –

compensation under the Rs.17,68,704 head ‘loss of dependency’ = Rs. 8,84,256/-

7 Conventional Heads (a) Funeral expenses. Rs. 15,000/- (b) Loss of estate. Rs. 15,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium (a) Loss of spousal Rs. 40,000 – Rs.5,000/- consortium. = Rs. 35,000/- (Rs.5,000/- granted by the (b) Loss of parental Tribunal). consortium (to minor Rs. 80,000/- children/appellant Nos.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each). 9 Total Compensation Rs.8,84,256 + Rs. 15,000 (Total enhanced + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 35,000 compensation payable + Rs. 80,000 after deducting the = Rs. 10,29,256/- rounded

Page 16 of 17 compensation granted by of to the Tribunal and the High

Court and after deducting Rs. 10,29,260/-

the excess compensation granted by the High Court and effecting consequential adjustment towards other grantable heads.

22. As a result, this Appeal is allowed in part as follows: -

(I) The Appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount

of compensation of Rs.10,29,260/-.

(II) The enhanced amount shall be paid by the 4 th

Respondent within a period of 8 weeks from today

and in case of failure, the enhanced amount will

carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the

date of filing of this appeal till the date of

realisation.

23. There will be no order as to costs. Pending

application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….…...............,J.

(B. R. Gavai)

.........................,J.

(C.T. Ravikumar) New Delhi;

October 18, 2022.

Page 17 of 17