Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1636 OF 2016

BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI AND OTHERS  ...  PETITIONERS (S)

VERSUS

MANI MUTHUPANDI AND OTHERS         ... RESPONDENT (S)

O  R  D  E  R

1. Aggrieved  by  the  inadequacy  of  compensation

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the

Tribunal’)  and the High Court,  the petitioners  have filed this

Special  Leave  Petition.  Taking  note  of  the  fact  that  the

deceased was aged 52 years, the Tribunal in the award dated

22.10.2008, declined to grant any addition for future prospects

in the salary and adopted the multiplier as “6.31”. An amount

of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards loss of consortium to the

wife  and  Rs.2,500/-  towards  funeral  expenses.  The

compensation amount was to carry interest at the rate of 7.5

per cent per annum.  

1

      NON-REPORTABLE

Page 2

2. The  claimants/petitioners,  not  satisfied  with  the

compensation, approached the High Court.

3. As  per  the  impugned  Judgment  dated  24.03.2015,

the appeal was disposed of. The learned Judge took note of the

decision of this Court in  Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 in adopting the

multiplier  and observed that  going by the said decision,  the

multiplier to be applied is “11”. However,  taking note of the

fact  that  the  deceased would have retired  at  the age of  60

years, fixed the multiplier as “8”. In the matter of consortium, it

was observed that “... deceased died not in the prime of his

youth but at his middle age”, and hence the widow was granted

consortium  of  Rs.25,000/-.  No  addition  was  made  towards

future prospects.

4. It is shocking and disturbing that the learned Judge

declined  to  follow  the  principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in

unmistakeable  terms  in  Sarla  Verma  (supra)  as  far  as

multiplier is concerned. We do not want to say anything more.

Therefore, in this case, the multiplier is taken as “11”.

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2

Page 3

5. As  far  as  consortium  is  concerned,  this  Court  in

Rajesh and others v.  Rajbir Singh and others2 has held

that consortium is the right of the spouse to the company, care,

help, comfort,  guidance, society,  solace, affection and sexual

relations with his or her mate. It  was also held in the above

case  that  the  children  are  also  entitled  for  award  of

compensation  for  loss  of  love,  care  and  guidance.  This

emotional  element  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  expected  life

span. Having observed that it was time to revisit compensation

granted  under  the  conventional  heads,  it  was  held  that  the

widow  was  entitled  to  loss  of  consortium  to  the  tune  of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards loss of love, care and guidance for minor

children, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded.

6. It was also held in  Rajesh (supra) that in case, the

deceased is above the age of 50 years, the enhancement of 15

per cent was to be given towards loss of future prospects.

7. Close to Rajesh (supra), there was another decision

of this Court, again of the strength of three Judges, in Reshma

Kumari  and  others v.  Madan  Mohan  and  another3,

rendered on 02.04.2013.

2 (2013) 9 SCC 54 3 (2013) 9 SCC 65

3

Page 4

8. While  Rajesh (supra)  went  a  step  ahead of  Sarla

Verma (supra) in awarding 15 per cent enhancement towards

loss  of  future  prospects,  the  decision  in  Reshma  Kumari

(supra)  reaffirmed  the  principles  laid  down  in  Sarla  Verma

(supra) which declined any addition towards future prospects

after the age of 50 years.

9. It  may  be  noted  that  there  was  no  reference  of

Reshma Kumari (supra) in  Rajesh (supra), apparently, since

the said judgment had not been reported by the time Rajesh

(supra) was rendered.  

10. On 02.07.2014, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in

National  Insurance  Company  Limited v.  Pushpa  and

others4,  taking  note  of  the  conflicting  positions  as  far  as

addition  of  future  prospects  after  the  age  of  50  years,  in

Reshma Kumari (supra) and  Rajesh (supra),    has made a

Reference of this aspect to a larger Bench. We are informed

that the Reference is still pending.

11. Under the above circumstances,  we are inclined to

pass  an  interim  Order  on  compensation  as  far  as  the

undisputed  areas  are  concerned  and  then  post  this  petition

after the Reference is answered by the larger Bench.  4 S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014

4

Page 5

12. Therefore,  by  way  of  an  interim  measure,  it  is

ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of

compensation by fixing the multiplier as “11”. The widow shall

be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-

and  the  children  together  are  entitled  to  compensation  of

Rs.1,00,000/-  towards  loss  of  love,  care,  guidance  and

protection. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of

9 per  cent from the date of  filing of  the claim petition.  The

Insurance Company shall re-work the compensation as above

and deposit the amount with the Tribunal within three weeks.

On such deposit, it will be open to the claimants to withdraw

the same.

13. As  far  as  enhancement  under  the  head  “future

prospects”, post this petition after the Reference is answered

by the larger Bench.

........................J.       (KURIAN JOSEPH)

.……………………J.                          (R. BANUMATHI)

5

Page 6

New Delhi; March 3, 2017.   

6