REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5206 of 2016

SURESHCHANDRA BAGMAL DOSHI & ANR. ….Appellants

versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.      ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Fate can be cruel.  This is a tragic case where the only daughter

of a  lawyer husband and a doctor  wife,  who got married early and

unfortunately became a widow also at a young age, died in a vehicular

accident,  which took place on 16.8.1998.  The claim of the parents

(appellants  herein)  in  respect  of  this  unfortunate  demise  forms  the

subject matter of the present appeal.

2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, as those are

not  really  liable  to  be examined in view of  the limited controversy

before us.  The claim was laid on the basis that the deceased daughter

1

was  working  in  the  company  of  original  respondent  No.4  as  an

International Internal Sales Engineer at a monthly salary of Rs.6,273.

She  had  a  B.E.  (Civil)  qualification.   Her  husband,  after  an  early

marriage, had unfortunately passed away in the year 1996 and since

then she was living with her parents, the claimants.  The deceased had

a quick successful progression in her career from the initial post of a

Secretary, and the claim was based on the prospective earning of the

deceased of more than Rs.25,000 per month.

3. We may note that  qua the accident, the driver of the vehicle in

which  the  deceased  daughter  was  travelling  died,  and  there  was

apportionment of contributory negligence to the extent of 80 per cent

qua the  truck driver,  and 20 per  cent  qua the  Tata  Sierra,  the  two

vehicles, which met with the accident.  However, this would not affect

the claim qua the parents before us.

4. There is no dispute that the assessed income of the deceased at

the time of the accident was Rs.6,273 per month.  This is a finding of

fact, both by the Tribunal and the High Court.  The Tribunal, however

added approximately 100 per cent towards future rise in income and

2

considered the prospective income at Rs.12,000 per month, and after

deducting 1/3rd towards personal  expenses of deceased,  the Tribunal

assessed  the  loss  of  dependency  or  the  future  economic  loss  at

Rs.8,000 per month and thereafter a multiplier of 16 was applied.  The

Tribunal,  thus,  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.15,36,000  towards  loss  of

dependency benefit; Rs.15,000 towards conventional amount under the

head loss of estate; Rs.15,000 towards loss of love and affection and

Rs.5,000 towards funeral expenses totaling to Rs.15,71,000 in terms of

an award dated 29.3.2007.  The claimants were also held entitled to

interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the award amount from the date of

application till realization.

5. Both the sides were aggrieved by the assessment of this claim

and filed appeals before the High Court, which modified the award of

the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 9.2.2015, which is subject

matter of the present appeal.

6. The High Court declined to accept the future income rise as 100

per cent and took the same as 50 per cent in view of the judgment of

this Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

3

Anr.1  The High Court, considering that the claimants were the parents

of  the  deceased,  deducted  50  per  cent  towards  personal  expenses

instead of 1/3rd of the amount, as per the Tribunal.  In fact, a reading of

the order shows that these were the only two pleas advanced on behalf

of  the  insurance  company  on  which  the  appeal  of  the  insurance

company succeeded.

7. The High Court, however, fixed the multiplier at 18 instead of

16 as fixed by the Tribunal, as the deceased was aged about 25 years,

and  that  would  have  been  the  appropriate  multiplier  as  per  Sarla

Verma2.  The High Court also examined the two other pleas made on

behalf of the claimants, i.e.,  that the award of Rs.15,000 for loss of

estate and Rs.15,000 for loss of love and affection was inadequate.

8. In view of what the High Court held as aforesaid, the amount

was computed at Rs.10,72,360 with a sum of Rs.50,000 being awarded

under the head of loss of estate as well as loss of love and affection

instead of Rs.30,000 as awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.5,000 towards

funeral expenses.  The interest awarded was also upheld.

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 supra

4

9. The claimants alone are the appellants before us.

10. On having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having

examined the record, we may note that the parties are ad idem on the

assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.6,273 per month.  The

question,  thus,  is  whether  the  Tribunal  was  right  in  increasing  the

amount for future rise in income by 100 per cent, or the High Court

was within its right to reduce the said amount to 50 per cent.

11. We have the benefit of the Constitution Bench judgment of this

Court  in  National Insurance Company Limited v.  Pranay Sethi  &

Ors.3.   While  examining  the  observations  in  Sarla  Verma4,  the

Constitution Bench gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50 per cent

to actual  salary of  the deceased towards future prospects where the

deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as in

the  present  case.   However,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has

brought to our notice a recent order passed by this Court in SLP (C)

No.22134/2016 and other connected matters dated 22.11.2017 wherein

3 AIR 2017 SC 5157 4 supra

5

while  taking  note  of  the  views  expressed  by  National  Insurance

Company  Limited5,  it  has  been  observed  that  the  percentage  for

calculating future rise in income  is no bar to future prospects being

taken  at  a  higher  level  where  the  assessment  is  based  on  actual

evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future

prospects were higher than the standard percentage.  Learned counsel,

thus, submitted in the context of the evidence led in the present case

that the two certificates dated 16.10.1998 and 8.7.2005 were proved in

terms whereof the deceased’s future prospects would have entitled her

to a gross salary in the range of Rs.14,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month.

No doubt the second certificate is dated 8.7.2005, after a lapse of 7

years from the first certificate, but then that would be a more realistic

estimate of what a person holding that post would be earning at that

stage  of  time.   There  is  no  rebuttal  evidence  led  by  the  insurance

company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates.  Thus, the

assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present

case.   As  noticed  above,  the  standardized  percentage  is  capable  of

being varied if the evidence is so led.

12. We are, thus, of the view that looking into the conspectus of the

5 supra

6

aforesaid  facts  and the  legal  position,  the  Tribunal  was  justified  in

giving  a  100  per  cent  increase  and  taking  the  future  prospects  at

Rs.12,000 per month.

13. The second  aspect  relates  to  the  percentage  of  deduction.   It

really could not be seriously disputed before us that considering that

the deceased is survived by the two parents, 50 per cent amount be

deducted as personal  and living expenses of  the deceased when the

deceased is unmarried or widowed, as in the present case in view of the

judgment  in  National  Insurance  Company  Limited6,  which  has

affirmed  the  position  in  Sarla  Verma7.   Thus,  the  High  Court  was

justified in increasing the percentage of personal expenses to the extent

of 50 per cent and not 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal.

14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads, in

National  Insurance Company Limited8,  it  has  been standardized at

Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium (in

the  present  case  loss  of  love  and  affection)  and  Rs.15,000  towards

funeral expenses.  The total amount, thus, would be Rs.70,000, which

6 supra 7 supra 8 supra

7

as per the said judgment is capable of being enhanced @ 10 per cent in

the span of every three years.  However, we are still within the window

of three years.

15. The result of the aforesaid is that after deducting 50 per cent of

the  amount  towards  personal  expenses  and  adding  100  per  cent

towards  future  rise  in  income,  we  would  be  back  at  the  figure  of

Rs.6,273 per month to which a multiplier of 18 has to be applied.  The

amount  would  come  to  Rs.13,54,968.   The  amount  under  the

conventional heads would be Rs.70,000, i.e., totaling to Rs.14,24,968

rounded off at Rs.14,25,000.  The award of interest would continue @

12 per cent as awarded by the Tribunal.

16. We may also  notice  the  litigation  of  two decades,  which the

appellants have had to go through before different forums to claim the

amounts due to them and we are of the view that they should be held

entitled to costs throughout, which we assess at Rs.25,000.

8

17. We,  thus,  allow the  appeal  in  the  aforesaid  terms  with  costs

assessed as aforesaid.

..….….…………………….J.     (J. Chelameswar)

              ...……………………………J.         (Sanjay Kishan Kaul)

New Delhi. April 18, 2018.

9