Appeal allowed enhancement of motor accident compensation. Held agricultural labourer entitled to 40% future prospects. Granted enhanced conventional heads. No interest on future prospects component awarded.
Enhanced compensation by Rs.2,16,000/-. No interest on future prospects component.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023:BHC-AS:27919
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1579 OF 2006
1.SMT. KALPANA MADHU GAVALI,)
AGE : 29 YEARS, OCCU : HOUSEHOLD,)
)
2.SAGAR MADHU GAVALI,)
AGE : 12 YEARS, OCCU : EDUCATION)
)
3.MANOJ MADHU GAVALI,)
AGE : 11 YEARS, OCCU : EDUCATION)
(APPLICANTS NO. 2 & 3 MINOR) )
THROUGH THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN)
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1))...APPELLANTS
V/s.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT)
CORPORATION, SWARGATE, PUNE.)...RESPONDENT
Mr.V.B.Rajure, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms.P.M.Bhansali a/w. Ms.Dharini Jain and Ms.Drishti Jain, Advocate for
the Respondent-MSRTC.
CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:21st SEPTEMBER 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, (the “M. V. Act”) by the original claimants in Claim
Application No.189 of 2003 filed before the Motor Accident Claims
avk 1/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
Tribunal, Baramati, seeking enhancement of compensation, in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1.
2.The brief facts are that on 18th May 2003 one Madhu Kondiba
Gavali, who had gone to Akluj to attend marriage of daughter of one
Dattu Hange and after the marriage he came to the old State Transport
(ST) Bus stand Akluj and when he was going to answer nature’s call,
one bus owned by the Respondent - Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC) bearing no.MH-R/R-2018 came from behind in
excessive speed and gave dash to him, due to which he fell down and
the bus ran over him, crushing his skull and killing him on the spot.
The Appellants, who are the wife, the father and two sons of the
deceased Madhu Gavali preferred a Claim Application under Section
166 of the M. V. Act for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. It
was the case of the Appellants that the deceased person, an agricultural
labourer, was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and that he would have
earned Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, had he survived. The
Appellants claimed Rs.2,60,000/- by way of loss and Rs.40,000/-
towards pain and agony, totalling to Rs.3,00,000/-. The Respondent
1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
avk 2/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
MSRTC opposed the Claim Application and filed a written statement
stating that the ST bus was in slow speed and the driver was driving
the bus by observing traffic rules with proper care. That, the deceased
himself fell to the backside wheel and the said fact was not known to
the driver and the accident occurred due to mistake of the deceased,
and therefore, the bus driver was not liable for the accident. It was,
accordingly, prayed that the application be dismissed.
3. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence including the First Information Report (FIR) and the other police papers, postmortem report as well as the testimony of the witnesses, held that Madhu Kondiba Gavali died in an accident on 18th May 2003, on the spot, being run over and crushed by the offending ST bus at Akluj Bus depot and held that the driver of the ST bus was negligent for the accident. It is recorded that the driver was not examined and the Tribunal held that there was no substance in the defence of the ST bus driver that he was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence on record regarding the income of the deceased, held the notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum from his agricultural labour work and after deducting 1/3rd income for his personal expenses, held that the family sustained dependency loss of avk 3/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
approximately Rs.10,000/- per year. Considering the age of the
deceased on the basis of the postmortem report, to be 30 years, the
Tribunal applied multiplier of ‘17’ and came to a total dependency loss
of Rs.1,70,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
consortium and love and affection and also an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- as loss of estate and held that
the Appellants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,87,500/-
including ‘No fault liability’ amount of Rs.50,000/-.
4.The Respondent MSRTC did not challenge this judgment and
award. However, the Appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and
award, have filed this Appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Mr.Rajure, learned Counsel for the Appellants, would submit that the
Appellants do not dispute the notional income of Rs.1,250/- per month
calculated on the basis of Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, the
Appellants are aggrieved that the future prospects of 40%, as observed
in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra),have
not been awarded. Mr.Rajure also relies upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Datta Halarnkar & Anr. vs. Mrs.Deepali
avk 4/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
Dinesh Harlarnkar2 to submit that once notional income is determined,
the benefit of future prospects will have to be granted. Learned
Counsel would submit that 40% of Rs.1,250/- would be Rs.500/- and if
that is added to the notional income of Rs.1,250/-, the monthly income
would be Rs.1,750/- and for 12 months it would amount to an income
of Rs.21,000/- per annum. Mr.Rajure submits that this is so because
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra)
considers application of 40% future prospects in the case of a person,
who is self employed or a person who is employed in an establishment.
Mr.Rajure would submit that the deceased, an agricultural labourer,
was self employed, married of 30 years having wife and two sons and
there being three dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses
would be Rs.14,000/-. Mr.Rajure does not also dispute the multiplier
of ‘17’ that has been applied. Learned Counsel would submit that
Rs.14,000/- multiplied by 17 would come to Rs.2,38,000/-.
5.Further, Mr.Rajure draws the attention of this Court to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
2 2022 (5) ALL MR 257
avk 5/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
Others3to submit that the Appellants, in addition, are entitled to an
amount towards loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the
dependents with 10% enhancement in a span of three years i.e.
Rs.44,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- with 10%
enhancement that would be Rs.16,500/- and loss of estate of
Rs.15,000/- with 10% enhancement that would be Rs.16,500/-. Thus,
the Appellants are entitled to consortium amount of Rs.44,000/- each
for the three Appellants, that would be an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- as
against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; to that the funeral
expenses of Rs.16,500/- as against Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the
Tribunal and loss of estate of Rs.16,500/- as against Rs.2,500/-awarded
by the Tribunal, would need to be considered. Learned Counsel would
submit that, therefore, the total amount under the conventional heads
would be Rs.1,65,000/-. Mr.Rajure would, therefore, submit that the
total compensation that the Appellants would be entitled, would be
Rs.4,03,000/- (Rs.2,38,000/- + 1,65,000/-). Learned Counsel has
tendered across the bar a chart containing the computation on the
above basis. The said chart has also been handed over to the learned
Counsel for the Respondent Corporation and is reproduced as under :
3 (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases
avk 6/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
Monthly Income – NotionalRs. |
1,250.00 |
|---|---|
40% futureprospectRs. |
500.00 |
Total …...1250.00+500.00 =Rs. |
1,750.00 |
Yearly Income…. 1,750.00x12=Rs. |
21,000.00 |
1/3rd deduction for living expenses(21,000.00-7,000.00)Rs. |
14,000.00 |
Multiplier1 |
7 |
Total incomeRs. |
2,38,000.00 |
Loss of consortium 44,000 x 3Rs. |
1,32,000.00 |
Funeral expensesRs. |
16,500.00 |
Loss of estateRs. |
16,500.00 |
Total Compensation(2,38,000.00 + 1,65,000.00)Rs. |
4,03,000.00 |
Less already awarded by TribunalRs. |
1,87,000.00 |
Total compensationRs. |
2,16,000.00 |
6.Ms.Bhansali, learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation,
would submit that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others (supra) refers to only a person who is self employed or a person
who is on a fixed salary. Learned Counsel strenuously urges her
contention and tenders across the bar, dictionary meaning of the word
‘self employed’ which reads as under :
“earning income directly from one’s own business, trade, or
profession rather than as a specified salary or wages from an
employer.”
avk 7/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
She would submit that, admittedly, the deceased was an agricultural
labourer and would not fit into either of the description and therefore
the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) would not apply to the facts of this
case, as far as the future prospects are concerned and appropriate
orders be passed.
7.Learned Counsel further submits that, in any event, no interest
be awarded on the amount of future prospects. She relies upon the
decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors.4
in support of her contention and submits that the same view has also
been taken by the Guwahati High Court earlier. Learned Counsel,
therefore, submits that National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others (supra) would not apply to the case in hand.
8.I have heard the learned Counsel at length and with their able
assistance perused the papers and proceedings and given my anxious
consideration to the rival contentions.
9. It is not in dispute that Madhu Gavali died being run over by the
ST bus owned by MSRTC on 18th May 2003. Learned Counsel for the 4 MAC APP No.33/2022 with connected matters decided on 14th July 2023
avk 8/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
MSRTC does not dispute the same. Also, no Appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment and award by the MSRTC.
10.The main contention raised in this Appeal is the applicability of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) with
respect to future prospects and increase in the amount under the
conventional heads. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation
has only disputed the application of future prospects and corresponding
interest to the case of the Appellants but not the enhancement sought
under the conventional heads.
11.Admittedly, the deceased was an agricultural labourer. Learned
Counsel for the MSRTC has first tried to submit that an agricultural
labourer neither fits into the category of self employed nor being on a
fixed salary, and therefore, the concept of future prospects cannot be
applied. She has also sought to invoke the dictionary meaning of the
word ‘self employed’. Firstly, no doubt, self employed would mean
earning income directly from one’s own business, trade, or profession
rather than as a specified salary or wages from an employer, however,
in my view, an agricultural labourer is a service provider of agricultural
labour and can be said to be engaged in his profession like a carpenter
avk 9/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
or a cobbler. He has the skill of agriculture labour and is specialized in
performing agriculture labour. Therefore, in my view, an agricultural
labourer earning income from the profession of agriculture labour is a
self employed person. No contrary view or decision has been brought
to my notice.
12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) bestowed their
anxious consideration and observed in paragraph 57 thereof that there
is really no rationale not to apply the principle with respect to fixing
future prospects to the self employed or a person who is on a fixed
salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone on to observe that to
follow the doctrine of actual income at time of death and not to add
any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the
purposes of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The
determination of income while computing compensation has to include
future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and
sweep of just compensation as postulated in Section 168 of the M. V.
Act.
13. It would also be pertinent to refer to paragraph 59.4 of the said decision, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case of
avk 10/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
deceased who was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% is where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded
as the necessary method of computation.
14.Paragraphs 52, 57 and 59.4 of the said decision are usefully
quoted as under :
“52.As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh vs.
Rajbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 54. It has granted Rs. 25,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and
guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care
and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh vs. Rajbir
Singh (supra) refers to Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, it does not seem to follow the
same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to
say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination
of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any
quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can
be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be
noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same.
There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there
will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are
likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
avk 11/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-
and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should
not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would
be condign that the amount that we have quantified should
be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three
years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in
consistency in respect of those heads.
57.Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are
disposed to think when we accept the principle of
standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the
said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a
fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the
time of death and not to add any amount with regard to
future prospects to the income for the purpose of
determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The
determination of income while computing compensation has
to include future prospects so that the method will come
within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as
postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a
deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of
annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to
state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on
a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future
prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation
would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction
between the two in that event would be certainty on the one
hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the
comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and
uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It
is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person;
and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance
one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a
salaried person on permanent job when increases because of
grant of increments and pay revision or for some other
change in service conditions, there is always a competing
attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get
better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who
avk 12/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise
his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To
have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his
income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental
concept of human attitude which always intends to live with
dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it
may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in
addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in
the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said
perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are
inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference
as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in
respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of
the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is
self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the
principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived
lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to
the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is
imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the
parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair
and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt
concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the
cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing
society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the
human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an
addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased
towards future prospects and where the deceased was below
40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
59.4In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.”
avk 13/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
15.I am also in agreement with the decision of this Court in the case
of Rajendra Datta Halarnkar & Anr. vs. Mrs.Deepali Dinesh Harlarnkar
(supra) that once notional income is determined, the benefit towards
future prospects will have to be granted. This Court in the case of
Rajendra Datta Halarnkar & Anr. vs. Mrs.Deepali Dinesh Harlarnkar
(supra) has observed in paragraphs 27, 28 and 35 that the contention
raised that no addition can be made towards future prospects in case of
notional income is not acceptable. This Court has held that once
notional income is determined, benefit for addition towards future
prospects will have to be granted. The said paragraphs are usefully
quoted as under :
“27.Most of the aforesaid decisions were recently
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti and
Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2021 ALL
SCR 669]. The specific issue as to whether addition towards
future prospects should apply to the notional income of a
housewife was considered in this matter. The Supreme Court
held that once the notional income has been determined, the
benefit of addition towards future prospects will have to be
granted in terms of the law laid down in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – (2017) 16 SCC 680.
28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there is a
shift in jurisprudence regarding future prospects with the
five-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra). The Supreme Court extended the benefit
regarding future prospects to even self-employed persons, or
those on a fixed salary. Taking the above rationale into
account, the situation is quite clear concerning notional
income determined by a court in the first category of cases
avk 14/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
outlined earlier, those where the victim was employed but
claimants are unable to prove the income before the court.
Once the victim has been proved to be employed at some
Venture, the necessary corollary is that she would be earning
some income. It is clear that no rational distinction can be
drawn with respect to the granting of additions due to future
prospects merely on the basis that the housemaker’s income
was not proved, particularly when the court has determined
the issue of notional income. Further, when it comes to cases,
relating to notional income for non-earning victims, the
above principle applies with equal vigour, particularly with
respect to homemakers. Once the notional income is
determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply.
Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in
skills that come with experience do not take place in the
domain of work within the household. The Supreme Court
referred to its earlier decisions where it has been granting
additions towards future prospects even in cases about
notional income.
35. In this case, as noted earlier, there is evidence on record based on which the income of Deepali could have been determined at 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month. ₹ ₹ However, even if all this evidence is ignored, as has been ignored by the Tribunal, the notional income of Deepali based on her status as a homemaker, in this case, ought to be taken as not merely 4,000/- per month, but at least ₹ ₹ 6,000/- per month. To this, applying the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition to the extent of 25% is warranted because the evidence on record suggests that the age of Deepali on the date of the accident was around 44 years. This means that Deepali’s income should be taken at ₹ 8,000/- per month. Applying the prescribed multiplier of 14, the compensation, were Deepali to expire in the accident, would come to 13,44,000/-. Since there is no dispute ₹ about Deepali having suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 50% on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, this amount will have to be determined at ₹ 6,72,000/-.”
avk 15/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
16.Ergo, in the facts of the case at hand, the deceased was an
agricultural labourer, aged 30 years, and therefore, rightly the future
prospects of 50% of notional income would be applicable.
17.With respect to the increase under the conventional heads,
which, although are not disputed by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent Corporation, I draw support from the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others (supra).
Paragraphs 20 and 21 are usefully quoted as under :
“20.The MACT as well as the High Court have not
awarded any compensation with respect to loss of
consortium and loss of estate, which are the other
conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in
the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench
in Pranay Sethi (supra). The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty−bound
and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of
whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant.
In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the
interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an
amount of Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium”
is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal
consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
avk 16/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.”
18.In view of above discussion, I have no doubt that the Appellants,
who are the legal representatives of the deceased agricultural labourer
Madhu Gavali, would be entitled to the future prospects as held in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others (supra) and the increase under the conventional heads in
accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Others (supra). Also, the Appellants, in addition, are
entitled to an amount towards loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each
with 10% enhancement in a span of three years i.e. Rs.44,000/- and
funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- with 10% enhancement that would be
Rs.16,500/- and loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- with 10% enhancement
that would be Rs.16,500/-. Thus, the Appellants are entitled to
consortium amount of Rs.44,000/- each for the three Appellants, that
would be amount of Rs.1,32,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal; to that the funeral expenses of Rs.16,500/- as against
Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and loss of estate of Rs.16,500/-
as against Rs.2,500/-awarded by the Tribunal, would need to be added,
totalling to Rs.1,65,000/-. Therefore, the total amount under the
avk 17/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
conventional heads would be Rs.1,65,000/-. Mr.Rajure would,
therefore, submit that the total compensation that the Appellants
would be entitled, would be Rs.4,03,000/- (Rs.2,38,000/- +
1,65,000/-).
19.Coming to the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent Corporation on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ladakh at Srinagar High Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors. (supra), which decision
has placed reliance on a similar view taken by the Guwahati High Court
in the cases of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania vs. Kamal Kumar
Sovasaria5 and Nasima Begum vs. Keramat Ali6, while submitting that,
if this Court was inclined to consider future prospects, then in any
event, compensation granted under the head of loss of future prospects
should not be subjected to payment of any interest thereon, I am in
agreement with the said submission. I am in agreement with the
reasoning given in paragraph 12 of the said decision that future
prospects are with regard to probable income to be received in the
future and as such, there is no requirement to compensate the claimant
by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur in future as the
5 2018 Supreme (Gau) 966
6 2019 Supreme (Gau) 507
avk 18/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
future is yet to happen. The said paragraph 12 is usefully quoted as
under :
“12. The third and last contention raised by the learned
Counsel for the Appellant is that the portion of compensation
granted under the head of loss of future prospects should not
have been subjected to payment of any interest thereon. This
argument of the learned Counsel carries force due to the fact
that the future prospects are relatable to an income to be
received in the future and, as such, there could not be any
loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects at
the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for
awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the
future prospects, is due to the fact that, though the loss of
dependency starts from the date of accident, the
compensation amount is computed on the date of the award
of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of
money value on account of lapse of time, such as the time
taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to
utilize the money when due. However, future prospects are
with regard to probable income to be received in the future
and, as such, there is no requirement to compensate the
claimant by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur
in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future
prospects are given for the entire future and, as such, the
claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under the
future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event(s).
Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is of the
view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects as
the same relates to an income to be given in the future. The
same view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in cases
reported as ‘2018Supreme (Gau) 966’; and ‘2019 Supreme
(Gau) 507’, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel
for the Appellant is accepted that the component of
compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is
not to be subjected to interest.”
20.In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed :
avk 19/20
901-FA-1579-2006.doc
ORDER
(i) The Appellants are entitled to compensation in the manner calculated as per the table in paragraph 5 as above. Accordingly, total compensation is worked out as Rs.4,03,000/- less Rs.1,87,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.(ii) Except the interest on the compensation under the head of loss of future prospects, as discussed above, let the Respondent Corporation pay an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the non-conventional amount and at the rate of 7.5% on Rs.1,65,000/- under the conventional head i.e. for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, with effect from 1st October 2017.(iii)The Respondent Corporation to deposit the amounts in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati, within a period of four weeks, from the date of uploading of this order, in the manner as contained in the impugned judgment and award.(iv)The Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
avk 20/20
3 issues framed by the court
Whether future prospects of 40% should be added to notional income of a self-employed agricultural labourer under age 40.
Whether conventional heads of compensation (consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) require enhancement based on Supreme Court rulings.
Whether interest should be awarded on the compensation awarded under the head of loss of future prospects.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and OthersFollowed¶16
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
Rajendra Datta Halarnkar & Anr. vs. Mrs.Deepali Dinesh HarlarnkarFollowed¶15
Rajendra Datta Halarnkar & Anr. vs. Mrs.Deepali Dinesh Harlarnkar
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and OthersFollowed¶17
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors.Distinguished¶19
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kalpana Madhu Gaval
Sagar Madhu Gaval
Manoj Madhu Gaval
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Abhay Ahuja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court