NON-REPORTABLE

    IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2523 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 994 of 2019)

SMT. SHANTABEN & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VS.

NATIONAL POWER TRANSPORT &  ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018,

as  passed in  FA No.  1083 of  1993,  whereby  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  has

dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.09.1992,

as  made by  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims Tribunal  (Main)  Kachchh at  Bhuj  in

MACP No.  52  of  1987 and has  declined the  prayer  for  enhancement  of  the

amount of compensation.

1

3. On 07.01.2019,  this  Court  had issued notice in  the petition for  Special

Leave to Appeal against  the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2018

'only to examine the non-award of future prospects while awarding compensation

to the claimants keeping in view of the order passed by the Constitution Bench in

the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and ors. – SLP

(Civil) No. 25599 of 2014 and batch'. The question in this appeal, therefore, is as

to whether reasonable addition towards future prospects has not been provided

while assessing the amount of compensation; and if so, what should be provided

towards future prospects and what would be the amount of just compensation?

4.  The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question at

hand, may be noticed, in brief, as follows:  

(a) On  03.02.1987  at  about  02.45  p.m.,  the  victim  Shri  Narshibhai

Dhanji  Sathwara,  while  proceeding  from  IFFCO  colony  of  Gandhidham  to

Ganeshnagar on a moped with his friend, met with an accident on being hit from

behind by the offending bus bearing registration No. GTY 8608, owned by the

respondent No. 1 and insured by the respondent No. 2. Both the moped riders

succumbed to the injuries sustained in this accident.  

(b) The claimants, being the wife, parents and sisters of the deceased

Shri Narshibhai Dhanji Sathwara, made the claim for compensation in MACP No.

52 of  1987 while asserting that  the deceased was 23 years of  age and was

earning about Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month by running a flour mill.  

2

(c) In  its  award dated 28.09.1992,  while  holding that  the accident  in

question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and that

the respondents were liable to make payment of compensation, the Tribunal took

up the process of assessment of the amount of compensation. In this regard, the

Tribunal  found  that  the  flour  mill  in  question  belonged  to  the  father  of  the

deceased and no documentary evidence (like income tax returns or books of

accounts etc.) as regards income of the deceased was adduced to substantiate

the claim as made but, on an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the

Tribunal observed that the deceased was running the flour mill in the capacity of

a manager and put an estimate on the gross earning of the deceased at Rs.

3,000/-  p.m.  However,  the Tribunal  provided for  the elements of  share of  the

father of deceased as also the expenditure on maintenance etc. and took the

income of  the  deceased  at  Rs.  1462.50  p.m.  and  then,  while  making  a  few

observations regarding inflationary trend of economy and prospective increase in

income  of  the  deceased,  finally  assessed  his  income  at  Rs.  1,800/-  p.m..

Thereafter,  the Tribunal  deducted 1/3rd on the personal  expenses and hence,

took the loss of dependency for the claimants at Rs. 1,200/- per month i.e., Rs.

14,400/- per annum. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 20 and in this manner,

ultimately awarded Rs. 2,88,000/- towards pecuniary loss. With addition of Rs.

12,000/- towards conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.

3,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimants together with interest @ 12%

per annum from the date of filing the claim application.

3

(d) Against the award so made by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred an

appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, seeking enhancement of compensation.

It is noticed, as per the submissions made, that the parents of the deceased Shri

Narshibhai Dhanji Sathwara expired during the pendency of the said appeal. The

High Court, in its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2018, took the view that the

Tribunal had calculated the income of the deceased rather on the higher side and

found it not justified to provide for any enhancement. Hence this appeal.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court, learned counsel for

the  appellants  has  strenuously  argued  that  the  High  Court  has  erred  in  not

applying the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) as also in the

case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram: 2018 SCC Online SC

1546  and in not awarding just compensation  in this case.  Per contra,  learned

counsel for the contesting respondent has duly supported the judgment of the

High Court.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the

record with reference to the law applicable.

7. In  a  comprehension  of  the  award  made  by  the  Tribunal  as  also  the

judgment  passed by the High Court,  we are constrained to  observe that  the

process  of  assessment  of  compensation  in  the  present  case  had  been  too

uncertain,  rather  vague,  and  unreasonably  restrictive;  and  the  amount  as

awarded to the appellants cannot be said to be that of just compensation.  The

4

Tribunal in the first place took the gross income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-

p.m. and thereafter, deducted 15% as return of investment to the father of the

deceased and further deducted 35% towards maintenance and break down etc.,

and  estimated  his  income  at  Rs.  1462.50  p.m.  and  then,  with  reference  to

inflationary trends of economy and prospective increase in income, took it at Rs.

1,800/- p.m.; and after deduction of 1/3rd on personal expenses, finally assessed

the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,200/- p.m. The Tribunal, thereafter, applied the

multiplier of 20 and in this manner, awarded Rs. 2,88,000/- towards pecuniary

loss.  The High Court proceeded in a moreover cursory manner by observing that

the  Tribunal  had  taken  the  income  of  deceased  at  Rs.  3,000/-  p.m.  and

considered it to be rather on the higher side for the year 1987 while referring to

the salary in other employments; and for this reason, the High Court found it not

justified to allow any enhancement. Obvious it is that the considerations of the

Tribunal as also of the High Court have gone too astray and the matter calls for

interference.  However, as observed, notice in the present case has been issued

only on the question of consideration of future prospects.

8. As  regards  making  a  reasonable  provision  towards  future  prospects  of

enhancement in the income of the deceased, in this case, where the deceased

was  self-employed  and  was  23  years  of  age,  an  addition  of  40%  of  the

established income is required to be provided in view of the decision in Praney

Sethi (supra).  Further,  for  determination  of  multiplicand,  it  is  noticed  that  the

deceased had left behind his wife, mother and two minor sisters apart from his

5

father.  Even if  father  of  the deceased is  not  taken as dependent,  it  appears

reasonable  to  take  the  number  of  his  dependents  as  4  and  to  provide  for

deduction of 1/4th for personal and living expenses. The deceased being 23 years

of age and in the overall circumstances, multiplier of 18 would be appropriate in

the present case.

9. Hence, even while taking the estimated income of the deceased at  Rs.

1,800/- p.m. as assessed by the Tribunal and providing for 40% enhancement

towards future prospects, the expected income of the deceased is taken at Rs.

2,520/- p.m and, after deducting 1/4th towards personal  expenses, the loss of

income for the claimants comes to Rs. 1,890/- p.m. i.e., Rs. 22,680/- per annum;

and further, with application of multiplier of 18, the final figure towards loss of

dependency comes to Rs. 4,08,240/- (22,680 x 18). The Tribunal, on this score,

has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- only.  The claimants-appellants, therefore,

would be entitled to further an amount of Rs. 1,20,240/-.  

9.1 As  noticed,  the  accident  in  question  took  place  in  the  year  1987.  The

parents of the deceased had expired during the pendency of appeal before the

High Court and the claimants-appellants in this appeal are the wife (appellant No.

1) and sisters (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) of the deceased. Having regard to the

circumstances, it  appears appropriate to provide that the enhanced amount of

compensation (Rs. 1,20,240/-) shall be apportioned amongst the appellants in

the manner that the appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, shall be allowed 50%

6

thereof (i.e., Rs. 60,120/-); and each of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, the sisters of

the deceased, shall be allowed 25% (i.e., Rs. 30,060/- each).   

9.2 It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% p.a. but, in the

overall circumstances of the case and looking to the enhancement allowed in this

appeal,  it  appears  just  and  proper  to  provide  that  the  enhanced  amount  of

compensation  shall  be  deposited  by  the  respondent  No.  2-insurer  with  the

Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this judgment failing which, it shall carry

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

10. This appeal is allowed in part in the above terms and the award stands

modified accordingly.  

.................................................J.          (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

          ................................................J.        (DINESH MAHESHWARI)   1

New Delhi  Dated: 06th March, 2019.

7