NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 20882 OF  2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1636/2016]

BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI & ORS.   APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS MANI MUTHUPANDI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. On 03.03.2017, this Court passed the following order:-

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

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”. 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,

1  (2009) 6 SCC 121 2  (2013) 9 SCC 54

2

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. 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

3  (2013) 9 SCC 65

3

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. 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

4  S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014

4

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.”

3. In view of the recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 13 SCALE 12, the claimants are  entitled to  an addition  of 15%  towards future prospects.  Therefore, this appeal is disposed of as follows:

In  addition  to  what  has  already  been ordered  in  the  order  extracted  above,  the claimants  shall  be  entitled  to  further enhancement of 15% on future prospects. In all other respects including the rate of interest also the order extracted above is maintained.

4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

5

5. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 6. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [AMITAVA ROY]  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 05, 2017.

6