Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently increased the amount of compensation to be paid to family members of a woman, killed in a road accident, holding that an age difference of 15 years was possible between the deceased mother-in-law and claimant daughter-in-law.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed the insurance company to pay a total compensation of Rs 13,82,500 to family members of Tarawati, finding reasonings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in considering the age of the deceased as erroneous. 

The court held the purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the claimant and the deceased was erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed, appellant no. 1 was aged about 30 years and a difference of 15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law could not be said to be totally devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s. 

"Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the post-mortem report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years," the bench said.

"In undertaking the exercise of computation of compensation, we have verily reminded ourselves that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it is our duty to award ‘just compensation'," the bench added. 

On February 07, 2003, at around 07:00 am, Smt Tarawati was going on foot to the bus stand of Village Sanjarwas Phogat, when the offending truck, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, crushed her to death. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of her death and was earning a monthly income of Rs 10,000, inclusive of income from agriculture and family pension.

The appellants filed a claim petition claiming a total of Rs 15,00,000. The MACT on August 31, 2015, awarded a compensation of Rs 4,31,680 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.   

Aggrieved by the MACT’s award, the appellants approached the high court by filing the first appeal. The high court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by Rs 1,65,081. 

Before the apex court, the appellants' counsel argued that the compensation awarded by the high court was inadequate and ought to be modified. 

They said that the age of the deceased had been taken as 60 years purely on conjecture, presuming that as per societal norms, the wife would be two years younger than her husband. This flawed reasoning had been upheld by the high court in the impugned order, inter alia, assuming the age of claimant no 1 as 42 years. It was argued that this reasoning was incorrect inasmuch as the age of claimant no. 1 was recorded as 30 years in the claim petition and the post-mortem report of February 07, 2003 clearly recorded the age of the deceased as being 45 years.   

They also contended that the high court erred in computing the income of the deceased.

Their counsel said a total of Rs 18,74,630 ought to be granted in compensation as the high court did not award the compensation under the various heads in terms of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi (2017).

The counsel for the Insurance Company, on the contrary, argued that the high court applied its mind judiciously and thoughtfully to every aspect of the case and every observation in the impugned order was based on evidence. 

The high court came to an inescapable conclusion that the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs 5,96,761 only and nothing more than that. This indeed was based on the guidelines of the courts, as laid down from time to time, and there was no justification for claiming more compensation under such circumstances. Sympathies cannot override the applicable law and the compensation awarded is overall fair and reasonable, the counsel contended.

Examining the matter, the court noted the issue fell in a narrow compass related to the monthly income and multiplier within the parameters of the formula fixed in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) as also with regard to the loss of love and affection, loss of care and guidance to minor and deduction for personal expenses.

The bench opined the amount arrived at by the high court of the monthly income being Rs 5,819 as against the claim of Rs 10,000 appeared to be on the lower side as the total earning of the deceased from the family pension itself ought to have been considered which itself would come to Rs 5,137 to which the notional wages as a homemaker had to be added as Rs 2,500. Thus, the monthly income would come to Rs 7,637, rounded off at Rs 7,000.

Coming to the multiplier factor, dependent on the age, the court said, there was sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the post-mortem report which was a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased. 

The court thus enhanced the total compensation to Rs 13,82,500. It directed for payment of the amount with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim till date of realization, within two months.

Case Title: Sunita & Ors Vs Vinod Singh & Ors