S. Vasanthi vs M/S Adhiparasakthi Engg. College

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

3.1 On 22nd May, 2010, S. Sathiyanarayan was riding on

a Bajaj Avenger motorcycle, bearing registration No. TN­04­

S­6492, at GST Road, Tambaram. While he was travelling

from the south to north direction by the western side of the

road, a bus owned by M/s Adhiparasakthi Engineering

College (respondent no. 1 herein), bearing registration No. 1 TN­21­H­2727, which was being driven rashly and

negligently, came from the same direction and dashed

against his motor cycle from the backside, thus dragging

him under the wheels of the bus. S. Sathiyanarayan

perished on the spot.

3.2 Thereafter, the bereaved parents of the deceased,

who are the appellants herein, filed a claim petition before

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee

(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being M.C.O.P. No. 1201 of

2010, for grant of compensation to the tune of

Rs. 30,00,000/­ with interest, on account of the death of

their son.

3.3 The Tribunal, noting that the deceased S.

Sathiyanarayan was, at the time of the accident, twenty­

three years of age and a student in the second year of the

MBA course at SRM University, passed an award amounting

to Rs. 7,48,052/­ as compensation with interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date

of realization. Pertinently, the Tribunal fixed the notional

monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/­ per month, 2 since he was not earning any salary at the time of the

accident.

4. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation so

awarded, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the High

Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Noting that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal

was meagre, the High Court enhanced the notional income

to a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ per month. Thus, the High Court

enhanced the compensation from Rs. 7,48,052/­ to

Rs. 16,27,000/­. Within that amount, the High Court also

enhanced the amount of loss of dependency, loss of love and

affection as well as funeral expenses, and further granted an

amount of Rs. 15,000/­ as loss of estate.

6. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A. K.

De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.

2­United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

8. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellants, submits that both the Tribunal and the High 3 Court have grossly erred in calculating the notional monthly

income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan at the rate of Rs.

10,000/­. He submits that the High Court ought to have

considered that S. Vasanthi ­ appellant No. 1, in an affidavit

filed by her before the Tribunal, had stated that two

classmates of her deceased son would go on to get

employment with reputed companies in India on a monthly

salary of approximately Rs. 40,000/­. The learned counsel

submits that appellant No. 1 had, in fact, produced the

salary certificates of the said two classmates with her

affidavit. The learned counsel therefore submits that the

deceased S. Sathiyanarayan, being an engineering graduate

who was pursuing an MBA degree to further his career,

would have attracted well­paying jobs had he been alive. The

learned counsel therefore submits that the notional monthly

income of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan should be

enhanced to Rs. 42842/­. The learned Counsel relies on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari Alias

Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and

Another1, in support of his contention.

1 (2022) 1 SCC 317 4

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

contend that both the Tribunal and the High Court were

correct in assessing the notional income at the rate of

Rs. 7,000/­ and Rs. 10,000/­ per month respectively, as the

deceased S. Sathiyanarayan was not yet in employment and

was merely a second­year student of his MBA course at that

time.

10. A perusal of the affidavit filed by appellant No. 1

before the Tribunal would reveal that she had specifically

stated that two of her son’s classmates were gainfully

employed with well­known companies in India and were

drawing monthly income of Rs. 39,869/­ and Rs. 44,588/­

respectively. It will be relevant to note that neither the

Tribunal nor the High Court has adverted to these

averments made by appellant No. 1.

11. It could thus be seen that the deceased S.

Sathiyanarayan was twenty­three years of age at the time of

the accident. He was a qualified engineering graduate and

was pursuing an MBA degree at SRM University to further

his professional capabilities. In view of the specific

averments made in the affidavit as to the employment 5 prospects of the classmates of the deceased S.

Sathiyanarayan and also his young age at the time of the

accident, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal

and the High Court have erred in not giving due weightage

to the same. Had the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan not met

with the unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn

a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an

amount near the said amount. Furthermore, the deceased

was the only issue of the appellants. Since no parent should

have to suffer through the death of their children, much less

their only child, we are of the considered view that the

monthly income as calculated by the High Court is

inadequate.

12. Thus, we find that the compensation to be paid on

account of the death of deceased S. Sathiyanarayan ought to

be worked out by enhancing his monthly income to Rs.

30,000/­. However, we find that, since he was the only child

of the appellants, in view of paragraphs (31) and (32) of the

judgment in the case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others v.

Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2, as upheld by

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 a Constitution Bench decision in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and

Others3, 50% of the amount would have to be deducted as

personal and living expenses. We further find that, insofar

as the loss of consortium is concerned, an amount of Rs.

40,000/­ will have to be awarded. The compensation on

account of the death of the deceased S. Sathiyanarayan is,

therefore, being reassessed as under:

Sr. No. Heads Calculation

1. Income Rs. 30,000/­ per month

2. 40% to be added to 30,000/­ + 12,000/­ = Future Prospects Rs. 42,000/­ per month

3. 1/2 deducted towards 42,000/2 = Rs. 21,000/­ personal expenses

4. Yearly Income [(Sl. No.2­ 21,000 x 12 = Sl. No. 3) x 12] Rs. 2,52,000/­

5. Compensation after 2,52,000 x 18 = Multiplier Rs. 45,36,000/­

6. Conventional Head Rs. 30,000/­ (Funeral Expense and Loss of Estate)

7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/­

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7

8. Transportation Rs. 5,000/­ Expenses  Total Compensation Rs. 46,11,000/­ Awarded (5+6+7+8)  Enhanced amount of 46,11,000­7,48,052 = Compensation from Rs. 38,62,948/­ MACT (Rs. 7,48,052/­)

 Enhanced amount of 46,11,000 – 16,27,000 = Compensation from HC Rs. 29,84,000/­ (Rs. 16,27,000/­)

13. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 29,84,000/­

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be

paid to the appellants within a period of three months from

the date of this judgment.

14. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 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 11, 2022.

8