Page 1

1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2933 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 1868 of 2014)

SURTI GUPTA                            …APPELLANT

Vs.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR.     …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

    Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2.   This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellant  

being  dissatisfied  with  the  impugned  Judgment  and  

award dated 02.07.2012 passed in FAO No.1647 of 1992  

(O & M) by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  

Chandigarh  wherein  the  High  Court  has  awarded  the  

compensation  amount  of  Rs.6,30,000/-  to  the  

appellant.   

NON REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

3.    The  relevant  facts  are  stated  hereunder  to  

appreciate the case with a view to determine whether  

the  appellant  is  entitled  for  enhancement  of  

compensation amount as prayed in this appeal.

4.    On the night intervening 9/10.07.1990 at around  

12:30 a.m., Parmod Bala, mother of the appellant, who  

along with five other passengers were travelling in a  

Maruti  Car  bearing  registration  No.  PBW-8399,  met  

with an accident near Oasis Tourist Complex on G. T.  

Road  near  Uchana  village,  Police  Station  Sadar  

Karnal, when a truck bearing registration No. PIB-

5733  being  driven  rashly  and  negligently  by  

respondent no. 2 coming from the opposite direction  

collided with the said car. Parmod Bala succumbed to  

the injuries caused to her due to the accident on the  

same day. An FIR No. 262 was registered on 10.7.1990  

at the Police Station, Sadar Karnal under Sections  

279/337/304-A of the I.P.C. against respondent no. 2  

herein.

5.    The appellant being the only surviving legal  

representative,  who  was  the  adopted  child  of  the  

deceased, filed a claim petition No.89 of 1990 before  

the M.A.C.T., Karnal seeking for compensation for the

Page 3

3

death of her deceased mother. The appellant at the  

time of the accident was 15 years of age and was  

wholly dependent on her mother. The Tribunal by its  

award  dated  11.11.1991  dismissed  the  said  claim  

petition filed by the appellant on the ground that  

she could not prove to be a legal representative of  

the deceased.

6.    Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal,  

the appellant filed FAO No.1647 of 1992 before the  

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The  

High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant  

and set aside the award of the Tribunal and awarded  

an  amount  of  Rs.6,30,000/-  to  the  appellant.  The  

relevant portion of the judgment and award of the  

High  Court  is  extracted  hereunder  to  examine  the  

break-up of figures and calculation made by the High  

Court before arriving at the above said compensation  

amount of Rs. Rs.6,30,000/- awarded under different  

heads  payable  to  the  appellant  by  the  respondent-

Insurance Company.

“At the time of death, the deceased was said  to have been working as a teacher, drawing a  salary of Rs.4,214/-. She was 45 years of  age and as per the formula prescribed in the

Page 4

4

judgment  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  Sarla  Verma  Versus  Delhi  Transport  Corporation  and  another  [2009(6)SCC  121,]  the prospect of increase in salary must have  been  duly  provided  for  by  escalating  the  salary by another 30%. The average salary  must  be  Rs,5,478/-  and  if  1/3rd deduction  were to be made for the personal consumption  of  the  deceased,  the  dependency  for  the  appellant must be taken as Rs.3,652/- per  month. Providing for a multiplier of 14, the  loss of dependency will be Rs.6,13,536/-. To  this sum shall be added the loss to estate,  funeral  expenses  and  loss  of  love  and  affection, all of which, in my view, add to  another 15,000/-. In all, the total amount  of compensation that become payable, shall  be  Rs.6,28,536/-,  which  I  round  off  to  Rs.6,30,000/-.”  

7.    Being  aggrieved  of  the  compensation  amount  

awarded by the High Court in its impugned judgment  

and  award,  the  appellant  has  filed  this  appeal  

seeking  for  enhancement  of  compensation  urging  

various grounds in support of her claim.

8.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the  

appellant  that  the  High  Court  has  failed  to  

appreciate  the  fact  that  at  the  time  of  the  

unfortunate incident, the appellant was only 15 years  

of age and since then i.e. for the last 25 years, the  

appellant has been suffering from mental trauma, loss  

of  love  and  affection  of  her  deceased  mother  and

Page 5

5

virtually  lost  the  higher  education  and  initial  

career building period of her life.

9.    It is further contended by him that the High  

Court erred by awarding only an addition of 30% to  

the actual salary of the deceased at the time of her  

death towards future income prospects by ignoring the  

fact  that  the  deceased  had  a  permanent  job  as  a  

teacher in a Government school and further the High  

Court has erred in taking the salary of the deceased  

at  the  time  of  her  death  at  Rs.4,214/-  when  the  

actual  salary  drawn  was  much  higher  as  she  was  

working  as  a  permanent  teacher  in  a  Government  

school.

10. On the other hand, the above contentions of the  

learned counsel on behalf of the appellant have been  

rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company by contending that the High Court  

has passed a detailed and reasoned judgment and award  

after due application of principles of law and after  

taking into consideration the legal principles laid  

down in the latest judgments of this Court on the  

above relevant aspects of the case. Hence, the same

Page 6

6

does  not  require  interference  by  this  Court  and  

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11. We  have heard  the learned  counsel for  both the  

parties and also examined the facts and circumstances  

of the case and the evidence on record. It is clear  

that  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  her  death  was  

working as a teacher in a Government school. It has  

been observed by the High Court that the appellant  

had  been  adopted  by  the  deceased,  and  was  wholly  

dependent on her mother at the time of the accident.  

It has also been observed by the High Court for the  

purpose of calculation of future loss of dependency  

of the appellant that the deceased at the time of the  

accident  on  10.7.1990  was  drawing  a  salary  of  

Rs.4,214/-  per  month  and  was  45  years  of  age.  

However, we are of the view that the salary of the  

deceased at the time of her death taken by the High  

Court is on the lower side considering that she was  

employed  as  a  permanent  teacher  in  a  government  

school and she must have had at least 20-25 years of  

work experience at the time of her death. Therefore,  

on  considering  the  facts,  circumstances,  pleadings  

and evidence on record in the present case, we are of

Page 7

7

the view that it would be just and proper to take the  

monthly  income  of  the  deceased  at  Rs.6,000/-  per  

month. Further, on addition of 30% to the income of  

the  deceased  towards  future  prospects  as  per  the  

principles laid down by this Court in the case of  

Sarla  Verma  v. Delhi  Transport  Corporation  and  

Another1,  the monthly income for the calculation of  

future loss of dependency of the appellant would be  

Rs.7,800/-  (Rs.6,000/-  +  30%  of  Rs.6,000/-).  

Therefore, the annual income comes to Rs.93,600/-. On  

deduction  of  1/3rd of  the  annual  income  towards  

personal  expenses  and  applying  the  appropriate  

multiplier as per the principles laid down by this  

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the future  

loss  of  dependency  suffered  by  the  appellant  is  

calculated at Rs.8,73,600/- [(Rs.93,600/-       (-)  

1/3rd of Rs.93,600/-) X 14].

12. Further,  the  High  Court  has  certainly  erred  in  

awarding a meagre amount of only Rs.15,000/- for loss  

of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral  

expenses. Therefore, we award Rs.1,00,000/- towards  

loss of love and affection as per the decision of  

1  2009(6)SCC 121

Page 8

8

this Court in the case of  Juju Kuruvila & Ors.  v.  

Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.2. We also award an amount of  

Rs.1,00,000/-  towards  loss  of  estate  as  per  the  

decision of this Court in the case of  Kalpanaraj &  

Ors.     v  .  Tamil  Nadu  State  Transport  Corporation  3.  

Further,  a  sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  is  awarded  towards  

funeral expenses as per the principles laid down by  

this Court in the case of  Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir  

Singh & Ors.4

13. The High Court has further erred in awarding an  

interest at the rate of 6% per annum only, instead of  

9% per annum on the compensation amount as per the  

principles  laid  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v. Association  of  

Victims of Uphaar Tragedy5.  We accordingly award an  interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per  annum  on  the  

compensation amount.  

14.   In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to  

compensation under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,73,600/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-

2  (2013)9 SCC 166 3  2014 (5) SCALE 479 4   (2013) 9 SCC 54 5  (2011) 14 SCC 481

Page 9

9

3. Loss of love and  affection

Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 10,98,600/-

Thus, the total enhanced compensation payable to the  

appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will be  

Rs.10,98,600/- with  interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  p.a.  

from the date of filing of the application till the  

date of payment. The respondent-Insurance Company shall  

either pay by way of demand draft in favour of the  

appellant or deposit the same with interest as awarded,  

before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Karnal,  

after  deducting  the  amount  already  paid  to  the  

appellant, if any, within six weeks from the date of  

receipt of the copy of this judgment.

    The  appeal  is  allowed  as  per  the  above  said  

directions. No Costs.

      ……………………………………………………………………J.                          [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

  ……………………………………………………………………J.                          [C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi,

Page 10

10

March 17, 2015

Page 11

11

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment      COURT NO.9               SECTION IVB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s)........./2015 arising from SLP(C) No.1868/2014 SURTI GUPTA                                        Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR.              Respondent(s) Date : 17/03/2015 This petition was called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Ms. Manjeet Chawla,Adv.                     

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice C. Nagappan.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed Non-

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)  (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)