Page 1

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8131-8132 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 743-744 OF 2014)

ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI              …APPELLANT

Vs.

RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA SHARMA & ANR.     ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

 V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1.These  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  appellant  

against  the  impugned  common  Judgment  and  order  

dated 18.6.2013 passed in First Appeal No. 1064 of  

2005 with First Appeal No.1555 of 2005 by the High  

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein the High  

NON REPORTABLE

Page 2

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    2

Court dismissed First Appeal No.1064 of 2005 which  

was filed by the claimant and allowed First Appeal  No.1555 of 2005 which was filed by the Insurance  

Company.  2.The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  

to appreciate the case with a view to determine  

whether the appellant, Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi,  

the  father  of  Raj  (deceased)  is  entitled  for  

relief as prayed in this appeal. 3.On  12.07.2002,  Raj  Ashvinbhai,  the  deceased  was  

heading to Istanpur from Uttamnagar on his two-

wheeler. While on his way, near Bhadvatnagar bus  

stand, a truck bearing registration no. GQA 7215  

belonging to the respondent, Ramkaran Ramchandra  

Sharma crashed into the two-wheeler on which Raj  

was  riding.  Due  to  the  force  created  by  this  

accident, Raj’s two-wheeler slid for about 25 feet  

while  Raj  fell  down  and  sustained  grievous  

injuries. Thereupon he was taken to L.G. Hospital  

wherein he succumbed to his injuries. On the same

Page 3

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    3

day, a panchnama was filed before the Vatva Police  

Station, Ahmedabad. 4.The  claimant-appellant  filed  a  claim  petition  

before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal  (in  

short  ‘the  Tribunal’)  at  Ahmedabad,  claiming  

Rs.28,73,000/-  as  compensation.  The  Tribunal  

ascertained the future income of the deceased at  

Rs.18,000/- per month. 1/3rd of the monthly income  

was deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore,  

Rs.12,000/-  per  month  (Rs.1,44,000/-  p.a.)  was  

calculated  for  the  loss  of  dependency  to  the  

parents  of  the  deceased.  Since  the  age  of  the  

deceased at the time of his death was 19 years, on  

applying  the  appropriate  multiplier  of  16,  the  

total compensation towards loss of dependency was  

arrived  at  Rs.23,04,000/-.  A  sum  of  Rs.15,000/-  

was  awarded  towards  love  and  affection  and  

Rs.5,000/-  towards  funeral  expenses  and  thus  a  

total compensation of Rs.23,24,000/- was arrived  

at  by  the  Tribunal.  The  Tribunal  apportioned  

contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the

Page 4

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    4

deceased and 80% on the driver of the offending  

truck  and  thus,  after  making   20%  deduction  

towards contributory negligence on the part of the  

deceased  the  Tribunal  awarded  an  amount  of  

Rs.18,59,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per  

annum to the appellant. 5.Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed  

by  the  Tribunal,  the  appellant  preferred  First  

Appeal No.1064 of 2005 before the High Court for  

enhancement  of  compensation,  whereas  the  2nd  

respondent-Insurance  Company  preferred  First  

Appeal No.1555 of 2005 for the reduction of  the  

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.  6.   After  hearing  the  parties,  the  High  Court  

affirmed  the  future  income  of  the  deceased  at  

Rs.18,000/-  per  month  as  determined  by  the  

Tribunal  and  deducted  50%  towards  personal  

expenses. It further held that the Tribunal had  

erred in considering the age of the deceased at  

the time of his death rather than the age of the  

parents  for  determination  of  multiplier,  since

Page 5

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    5

they are the claimants in the case on hand, as per  

the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v.  

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.1. Therefore, by  

applying  the  appropriate  multiplier  of  13,  the  

High Court determined the loss of dependency at  

Rs.14,04,000/-  as  against  Rs.23,04,000/-  as  

considered  by  the  Tribunal.  After  examining  the  

facts,  evidence  produced  on  record  and  

circumstances of the case, the High Court was of  

the view that the contributory negligence on the  

part of the deceased was higher than 20%, however,  

it  affirmed  the  contributory  negligence  as  

determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, after 20%  

deduction  towards  contributory  negligence  and  

addition towards other heads, the High Court, by  

its  impugned  Judgment  and  order  awarded  a  

compensation  under  all  heads  of  Rs.11,39,200/-  

with 9% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the same,  

the appellant has filed these appeals.

1  (2009)6 SCC 121

Page 6

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    6

7. It  has  been  contended  by  the  learned  Senior  

Counsel for the appellant Mr. Fakriddin that the  

offending truck hit the two-wheeler from behind.  

As a result, the deceased fell down and his two-

wheeler was dragged by the offending truck up to a  

distance of about 25 feet. Thus, the finding of  

the  Tribunal  as  well  as  the  High  Court  towards  

contributory negligence of the deceased at 20% is  

uncalled for. Further it was contended that the  

High  Court  has  reduced  the  compensation  from  

Rs.18,59,200/- to Rs.11,39,200/- which is contrary  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  

Sanobanu  Nazirbhai  Mirza  &  Ors.  Vs.  Ahmedabad  

Municipal Transport Service2.

8.On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  

respondents  contended  that  the  High  Court  has  

rightly reduced the compensation by deducting 50%  

for personal expenses of the deceased since he was  

unmarried at the time of his death and adopted a  

2  (2013) 9 SCR 882

Page 7

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    7

multiplier  of  13  by  considering  the  age  of  the  

parents as per the guidelines laid down by this  

Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years  

old and was pursuing his medical degree with good  

marks at the time of the accident. With respect to  

the  future  income  of  students  pursuing  

professional  courses  we  refer  to  Arvind  Kumar  

Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.3,  

wherein this Court held as under:- “14.  On  completion  of  Bachelor  of  Engineering  (Mechanical)  from  the  prestigious  institute  like  B.I.T., it can be reasonably  assumed  that  he  would  have  got a good job. The appellant  has  stated  in  his  evidence  that in the campus interview  he  was  selected  by  Tata  as  well  as  Reliance  Industries  and  was offered  pay package  of Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum.  Even if that is not accepted  for want of any evidence in  support thereof, there would  not have been any difficulty  for  him  in  getting  some  

3  (2010) 10  SCC 254

Page 8

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    8

decent  job  in  the  private  sector.  Had  he  decided  to  join  government  service  and  got  selected, he  would have  been put in the pay scale for  Assistant Engineer and would  have  at  least  earned  Rs.  60,000/- per annum. Wherever  he  joined,  he  had  a  fair  chance of some promotion and  remote  chance  of  some  high  position.  But  uncertainties  of  life  cannot  be  ignored  taking relevant factors into  consideration.  In  our  opinion,  it  is  fair  and  reasonable  to  assess  his  future  earnings  at  Rs.  60,000/- per annum taking the  salary and allowances payable  to  an Assistant  Engineer in  public  employment  as  the  basis….”

The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into  

proper  consideration  that  the  deceased  was  a  

student of medicine at the time of the accident  

while  determining  his  future  income.  The  courts  

below have wrongly ascertained the future income of  

the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which  

in our view is too less for a medical graduate  

these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed

Page 9

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    9

in following the principles laid down by this Court  

in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was  

a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who  

could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation  

and  reached  greater  heights.  Today,  medical  

practice  is  one  of  the  most  sought  after  and  

rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase  

in demand for medical professionals, their salaries  

are also on the rise.  Therefore, we have no doubt  

in ascertaining the future income of the deceased  

at  Rs.25,000/-  p.m.  i.e.  Rs.3,00,000/-  p.a.  

Further,  deducting  1/3rd of  the  annual  income  

towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance  

Co. Ltd.  v. Deo Patodi and Ors4, and applying the  

appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the  

age  of  the  parent  of  the  deceased,  as  per  the  

guidelines laid down in  Sarla Verma case (supra),  

we  arrive  at  a  total  loss  of  dependency  at  

4  (2009)13 SCC 123

Page 10

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    10

Rs.26,00,000/-[(Rs.3,00,000/-  minus  1/3  X  

Rs.3,00,000/-)X 13]. 10.Further,  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  have  

erred in not following the principles laid down by  

this Court in  M. Mansoor & Anr  v. United India  

Insurance Co. Ltd.5 in  awarding a meagre sum of  

just Rs.15,000/- under the heads of loss of love  

and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/-  

to the appellant towards the same. 11.With  regard  to  the  apportionment  made  by  the  

Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view,  

after considering the facts, evidence produced on  

record and circumstances of the case on hand, that  

there  was  no  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  

deceased. The courts below have failed to examine  

the facts of the case on hand with respect to the  

opinion of this Court given in  Juju Kuruvila &  

Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.6   From the evidence produced on record, the two-

wheeler of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch  

5    2013 (12) SCALE 324  

6  (2013)9 SCC 166

Page 11

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    11

of about 20-25 feet on the road after the collision  

with the offending truck. We are of the considered  

view,  that  to  be  able  to  create  this  kind  of  

enormous effect on the two-wheeler of the deceased,  

the offending truck must have been travelling at a  

fairly high speed and that its driver did not have  

sufficient control over his vehicle. The driver of  

the offending truck should have been aware that he  

was  driving  the  heavy  motor  vehicle  and  taken  

sufficient  caution.  We  do  not  see  any  direct  

evidence that shows negligence on the part of the  

deceased that led to the accident. Therefore, as  

per the principles laid down by this Court in the  

case  referred  to  above  in  this  aspect,  the  

contributory negligence apportioned by the courts  

below on the part of the deceased is set aside. 12.The  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  have  further  

failed in awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards funeral  

expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to the  

principles laid down by this Court in  Rajesh &

Page 12

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    12

Ors. v. Rajbir  Singh  &  Ors.7.  Hence,  we  award  

Rs.25,000/- towards the same.   13. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled  

to compensation under the following heads:

1 .

Loss of  dependency Rs.26,00,000/-

2 .

Loss of love and  affection Rs.1,00,000/-

3 . Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

TOTAL Rs.27,25,000/-

Thus,  the  total  compensation  payable  to  the  

appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will  

be Rs.27,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%  

p.a. from the date of filing of the application  

till the date of payment.  14.  Accordingly,  we  allow  these  appeals  in  

awarding Rs.27,25,000/- with interest @9% p.a. 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  after  

7   (2013) 9 SCC 54

Page 13

C.A. No. 8131-8132 of 2014                                                                    13

deducting  the  amount  already  paid  to  the  

appellant, if any, within six weeks from the date  

of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No Costs.

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

  ……………………………………………………………………J.                         [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

New Delhi, September 25,2014