1

‘NON­REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (C) NO(S).13931 OF 2017

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.       …. Petitioner (s)

Versus VINISH JAIN AND ORS.      … Respondent(s)

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (C) NO(S).13932 OF 2017

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.       …. Petitioner (s)

Versus VINISH JAIN AND ORS.      … Respondent(s)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2445  OF 2018 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S).13933 OF 2017)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.       …. Appellant (s)

Versus YOGESH JAIN AND ORS.      … Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Gupta J.

1. These three cases are directed against the judgment

dated  03.10.2016  whereby three appeals under the  Motor

Vehicles Act were disposed of by the High Court.

2

SLP (C) NO(S).13931 OF 2017

2. This case is filed by Vinish Jain and others.  It relates to

death of one Alok Jain.   Even as per the learned counsel for

the petitioner  if the  judgment rendered by the Constitution

Bench of this Court in  National Insurance Co. Ltd.  v.

Pranay Sethi1   is applied, the difference in compensation is

just about 5%.   

3. This Court normally does not interfere where variation in

the compensation is within the permissible limits.  Therefore,

the special leave petition is dismissed.

SLP (C) NO(S).13932 OF 2017

4. This case filed by Vinish Jain and others relates to death

of one Kalpana Jain.   Even as per the learned counsel for the

petitioner if the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench

of this Court in  Pranay Sethi  (supra) is applied, the

difference in compensation is just about 4%.   

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

3

5. This Court normally does not interfere where variation in

the compensation is within the permissible limits.  Therefore,

the special leave petition is dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP (C) NO(S).13933/2017

6.  Leave granted.

7. This case relates to death of one A.P. Jain.   He was 78

years of age.   At the time of death, his annual income was

assessed at Rs.3,64,500/­.  The deduction made for personal

expenses at 1/3 is very low keeping in view the fact that the

claimants are his two major sons and two grand­daughters.

The major sons have their own source of income and were not

dependent on the deceased and the two grand­daughters are

primarily dependent on their father and not on their

grandfather.  We are also of the view that the High Court has

erred in granting Rs. 50,000/­ as loss of love and affection to

each  of the  claimants.  The total compensation  granted is

Rs.14,39,980/­ along with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum.  

4

8. We feel that 50% deduction is called for and if this factor

is taken  into  consideration  then  the loss  of  dependency  is

Rs.1,82,250/­ and if multiplier of 5 is used, the compensation

works out to Rs.9,11,250/­.  In addition, the claimants would

be entitled to Rs.70,000/­ for love and affection and funeral

expenses etc. as per the judgment of this Court passed in the

case of  Pranay Sethi  (supra).  Accordingly, the amount of

compensation is reduced to Rs.9,81,250/­ along with interest

awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Stay granted vide order dated 24.04.2017 stands

vacated.   The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi February  23, 2018