Page 1

1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3211-3212 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 1668-1669 of 2014)

ASHA VERMAN & ORS                      …APPELLANTS Vs.

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.                  …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

    Leave granted.

2.  These  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  appellants  

against the final judgment and order dated 22.02.2013  

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  

in M.A. No.480 of 2008, wherein the High Court partly  

allowed the appeal of the appellants and dismissed the  

review petition No.256 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013.  

3.  The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to  

appreciate the case with a view to determine whether the  

NON REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation  

amount as prayed in these appeals?

4.  On 27.11.2006, Jhabbu Verman, aged 35 years, was on  

his way back from Tripuri to Garha (Jabalpur) on his  

motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-20-Y-7669 and met  

with an accident when a truck bearing registration No.  

MP-20-GA-2221 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and  

negligently collided with the back of his motorcycle. As  

a result of the same, Jhabbu Verman fell towards his  

right and the wheel of the vehicle ran over his hands  

which lead to severe damage to his left hand.  Due to  

the grievous injuries caused in the said accident, he  

was  immediately  taken  to  the  Mahakaushal  College  and  

Hospital and he remained under medical treatment from  

28.11.2006,  during  which  period  he  underwent  an  

operation and plastic surgery twice on his chest and was  

advised for amputation of his left hand. However, due to  

the severity of injuries caused to him in the accident,  

Jhambu Verman died on 08.12.2006.

5.   A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor  

Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed on 06.01.2007 before the  

Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal  (for  short  ‘the  

Tribunal’), at Jabalpur, M.P. by the appellant No.1 -

Page 3

3

wife  of  the  deceased,  appellant  Nos.2  &  3  -  minor  

children of the deceased, appellant Nos. 4 & 5-parents  

of the deceased, claiming Rs.31,70,000/- as compensation  

for loss caused due to the death of Jhambu Verman.  

6.   The  Tribunal  after  considering  the  facts,  

circumstances  and  evidence  on  record  of  the  case  on  

hand, passed an Award dated 08.10.2007 by awarding a  

total compensation of Rs.3,75,500/- at an interest rate  

of 6.5% per annum to the appellants.

7.   Aggrieved by the insufficient compensation awarded by  

the Tribunal in its Award, the appellants preferred an  

Appeal  before  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at  

Jabalpur for enhancement of compensation urging various  

grounds.  The  High  Court  after  examining  the  facts,  

circumstances and evidence on record enhanced the amount  

to a total compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- under all heads  

with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The following  

is  the  breakup  of  compensation  under  various  heads  

awarded by the High Court:-

(i) Loss of dependency – Rs. 4,50,000/- (ii) Funeral Expenses   - Rs.    5,000/- (iii) Loss of estate     - Rs.    5,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium – Rs.    5,000/- (v) Loss of love       - Rs.   20,000/-

and affection

Page 4

4

(vi) Towards pecuniary  - Rs.   50,000/- Loss ------------------------------------ TOTAL              - Rs. 5,35,000/-

The appellants filed a review petition before the High  

Court which was dismissed on 21.06.2013. The appellants  

have challenged both the orders by filing special leave  

for enhancement of the compensation amount.

8.   It has been contended by the learned counsel for the  

appellants that the High Court has wrongly assessed the  

monthly salary at Rs.3,500/- per month and failed to  

appreciate that the deceased was 35 years of age and was  

working as a technician at Mahakaushal Hospital and that  

he was getting a salary of Rs.4617/- per month. Further,  

it is contended that the High Court failed to appreciate  

that  Rajnikant  Tiwari  (PW-3),  Occupation  Manager,  

Mahakaushal  Hospital,  Jabalpur,  has  stated  that  the  

deceased  was  an  operation  theatre  technician  at  the  

Hospital  and  was  getting  a  salary  of  Rs.4,600/-  per  

month. Further, the courts below failed to consider the  

legal principles laid down by this Court with respect to  

calculation  of  future  prospects  of  income  of  the  

deceased in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC1, according  1

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Page 5

5

to which case 50% of the actual salary is to be added to  

the income of the deceased if he is in a permanent job  

and  below  the  age  of  40  years.  Therefore,  it  is  

contended that on applying the said principles laid down  

by this Court in the above said case, the income of the  

deceased for calculation of loss of dependency should be  

taken at Rs.6,900/- [Rs. 4,600/- + 50% of Rs. 4,600/-].

9.   It is further contended by him that the deduction  

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased  

should be one-fourth by applying the law laid down in  

Sarla Verma (supra) and not one-third as taken by the  

courts below.

10. It is further contended by him that the High Court  

has  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  wife  of  the  

deceased  spent  about  Rs.1,40,000/-  on  medical  

treatment  of  her  husband(deceased)  and  bills  for  

Rs.1,23,630/-  for  treatment  have  been  produced  in  

support of the same.  

11. On the other hand, it has been contended by the  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  No.3-Insurance  

Company that the High Court already enhanced the just  

and reasonable compensation after examining the facts  

and circumstances of the case and evidence on record

Page 6

6

and therefore, submitted that the appellants are not  

entitled for further enhancement of compensation as  

claimed in these appeals.  

12. It is further contended by the learned counsel on  

behalf of the Insurance Company that the High Court  

has  rightly  upheld  the  observation  made  by  the  

Tribunal that no cogent evidence has been adduced to  

prove that the deceased was in a permanent job and  

was getting salary of Rs.4,617/- per month.

13. Further, it is contended by him that the Tribunal  

has rightly disbelieved the bills of Rs.1,23,630/- as  

Ex.  P11  alleged  to  be  spent  on  the  treatment  of  

deceased and the same has been duly considered by the  

High Court. Hence, the impugned judgment does not  

require interference by this Court.

14. 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.  

15. We are of the considered view that the courts below  

have erred in the calculation of loss of dependency by  

wrongly ascertaining the income of the deceased at the  

time of his death. It is clear that the deceased at the  

time of his death was working in the operation theatre

Page 7

7

as a technician in the permanent post at the Hospital  

and was earning Rs.4,617/- per month (rounded off to  

Rs.4,600/-). On applying the principles as laid down in  

the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the salary must  

be added to the income of the deceased towards future  

prospects  of  income,  which  comes  to  Rs.6,900/-  per  

month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for  

personal  expenses  and  applying  the  appropriate  

multiplier  taking  into  consideration  the  age  of  the  

deceased at the time of his death as per  Sarla Verma  

(supra),  the  total  loss  of  dependency  comes  to  

Rs.9,93,600/-   [(Rs.82,800/-  (-)  1/4  X  Rs.82,800/-)X  

16].

16. Further, Rs.1,40,000/- was spent by the appellant-

wife  for  medical  purposes  of  her  husband(deceased)  

during  the  period  of  treatment  before  his  death.  

Accordingly,  we  award  an  amount  of  Rs.1,40,000/-  

towards medical expenses incurred for the treatment of  

the deceased.

17. Further, the High Court has erred in awarding only Rs.  

5,000/- each towards loss of estate, funeral expenses  

and loss of consortium. We award Rs.1,00,000/- towards  

loss of estate according to the principles laid down in

Page 8

8

the  case  of  Kalpanaraj  &  Ors.     v  .  Tamil  Nadu  State    

Transport  Corporation2,  Rs.25,000/-  towards  funeral  

expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium  

as per the principles laid down by this Court in the  

case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.3

18. Further, we award Rs.1,00,000/- each to the appellant-

children towards loss of love and affection due to the  

loss of their father(deceased) as per the decision of  

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

Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.4. Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/-  

is awarded to each of the appellant-parents towards  

loss of love and affection of their deceased son as per  

the principles laid down by this Court in the case of  

M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5.

19. Further,  the  High  Court  has  erred  in  awarding  an  

interest at the rate of 8% 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 Tragedy6.  We accordingly award an interest at  the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount.  

2 2014 (5) SCALE 479 3  (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 (2013)9 SCC 166 5   2013 (12) SCALE 324  6 (2011) 14 SCC 481

Page 9

9

20.     In the result, the appellant shall be entitled  

to compensation under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,93,600/-     2. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Loss of love and  

affection to children Rs.2,00,000/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.1,40,000/- 7. Loss of love and  

affection to parents Rs.1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 16,58,600/-

21. Further,  though  all  the  appellants  are  legally  

entitled  for  equal  share  of  Rs.1,98,720/-  

(Rs.9,93,600/-  divided  by  5)  each  out  of  the  

compensation  awarded  towards  loss  of  dependency,  

however, by keeping in mind the age of the parents of  

the  deceased  and  also  the  future  educational  

requirements of the minor-children of the deceased, we  

are of the view that the parents of the deceased shall  

be  entitled  to  1  lakh  each  out  of  the  total  

compensation amount awarded towards loss of dependency  

and the remaining part of their share (i.e. Rs.98,720/-  

each)  shall  be  equally  divided  and  added  to  the  

appellant-minors’ share of compensation. Therefore the  

following is the apportionment of the amount awarded

Page 10

10

towards  loss  of  dependency  of  the  appellants  with  

proportionate interest:

(i) Appellant No.1 – Rs. 1,98,720/- (ii) Appellant No.2 – Rs. 2,97,440/- (iii) Appellant No.3 – Rs. 2,97,440/- (iv) Appellant No.4 - Rs. 1,00,000/- (v) Appellant No.5 – Rs. 1,00,000/-

Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants  

by  the  respondent-Insurance  Company  will  be  Rs.  

16,58,600/- 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 is directed  

to deposit the sum payable to the appellant-children  

with proportionate interest awarded by this Court in  

fixed  deposit  in  any  nationalised  bank  as  per  the  

preference  of  appellant-No.1/guardian  till  the  

appellant Nos. 2 and 3 attain majority with the liberty  

to  the  mother/guardian  to  withdraw  interest  &  such  

amounts for their education, development and welfare by  

filing  the  appropriate  application  before  the  Motor  

Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Jabalpur.  The  respondent-

Insurance  Company  shall  either  pay  the  remaining  

compensation amount by way of demand-draft in favour of  

the appellant Nos.1, 4 and 5 or deposit the same with

Page 11

11

interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents Claims  

Tribunal, Jabalpur, after deducting the amount already  

paid to the appellants, if any, within six weeks from  

the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

     The appeals are allowed as per the above said  

directions. No Costs.

                  ……………………………………………………………………J.

                       [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

  ……………………………………………………………………J.                         [C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, March 27, 2015

Page 12

12

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment     COURT NO.10               SECTION IVA                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A.No......./2015 @ SLP (C)  No(s).  1668-1669/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/02/2013  in MA No. 480/2008,21/06/2013 in RP No. 256/2013 passed by the High  Court Of M.P At Jabalpur) ASHA VERMAN & ORS.                                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.                               Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s)  Mr. M.P. Singh, Adv.                      Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal,Adv.                    For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Viresh B. Saharya,Adv.                       

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

Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed Non-

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR. JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

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