BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER AND ORSversusSIDABHA PETHABHA MANKE AND ORS

1052                       [2018]REPORTS
                 SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1052           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                   BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER AND ORS
                                   v.
                    SIDABHA PETHABHA MANKE AND ORS
                          (Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2018)
                       APRIL 5, 2018* and APRIL 6, 2018**
 B
              [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                        DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
               Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Death due to motor
       accident – Tribunal allowed compensation claim of appellants in
       the amount of Rs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. – High Court
 C     allowed an additional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of
       loss of life, expenses and consortium but did not allow for future
       prospects and also reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to
       9% p.a. – On appeal, held: In view of the decision of Constitution
       Bench in Pranay Sethi, an addition of 25% is warranted, on account
 D     of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased (41
       years) – Quantum of compensation shall stand enhanced to
       Rs.12,67,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim
       petition.
             Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died when the jeep
 E     that he was travelling in was hit by a truck driven by the first
       respondent. MACT allowed the claim in the amount of
       Rs.7,78,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., as against the claim of
       appellants for Rs.13 lakhs. In appeal, High Court allowed an
       additional amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of loss of life,
       expenses and consortium but reduced the rate of interest from
 F     12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Hence, the present appeal.
              Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The High Court had computed the total income
       of the deceased at Rs 91,800/- (Rs 55,000/- being the income
 G     from agriculture and Rs 36,800/- being the income from salary).
       In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi,
       an addition of 25% is warranted, on account of future prospects
       having regard to the age of the deceased (41 years). The total
       income, after accounting for future prospects at 25% would work
       * Judgment delivered on 05.04.2018
 H     ** Corrigendum dated 06.04.2018
                                            1052
    BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER v. SIDABHA PETHABHA                                1053
                     MANKE

out to Rs 1,14,000/- per annum. An amount of one fourth would                A
have to be reduced on account of personal expenses. The net
income would work out to Rs 85,500/-. Applying a multiplier of
14, the total compensation would work out to Rs 11,97,000/-.
Adding a further amount of Rs 70,000/- under conventional heads
as stipulated in the judgment in Pranay Sethi, the total
                                                                             B
compensation payable would work out to Rs 12,67,000/-. There
is no reason to intefere with the award of interest at 9% p.a. by
the High Court. The quantum of compensation shall stand
enhanced to Rs 12,67,000/- on which interest shall be payable at
9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. [Paras 5-7][1054-G-
H; 1055-A-C]                                                                 C
      National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
      (2017) 13 SCALE 12 – followed.
                         Case Law Reference
      (2017) 13 SCALE 12                  followed         Para 4            D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2697
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2016 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 5010 of 1999.
                                                                             E
     Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Mrs. Dhurita Purvish
Malkan, Ms. Rumi Chand, Bhaskar Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal arises
from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 15 March 2016, in a          F
first appeal from the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(MACT), Jamnagar.
      2. The appellants are heirs and legal representatives of
NayabhaMapbha Ker who died as a result of a motor accident on 18
July 1993. He was travelling in a jeep bearing Registration No GBI-          G
7896 which was being driven by the fourth respondent towards Mithapur.
At about 3.00 am the first respondent who was driving a truck bearing
Registration No.GJ-10-T-747, came from the opposite direction and
dashed against the jeep. Nayabha was seriously injured and died during
the course of the accident. His heirs filed a claim petition under Section
                                                                             H
1054               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Jamnagar seeking
       compensation in the amount of Rs 13 lakhs. By its award dated 19 July
       1999 the Tribunal allowed the claim in the amount of Rs 7,78,000 together
       with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellants filed a first
       appeal before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, by its impugned
       judgment, allowed an additional amount of Rs 33,000 under the head of
 B
       loss of life, expenses and consortium but reduced the rate of interest
       from 12 % p.a. to 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High
       Court, the claimants are in appeal.
             3. The deceased was 41 years old at the time of the accident. He
       had acquired a B.A. and B.Ed. qualification. For seven years, he had
 C     served as President of the Taluka Panchayat.The deceased owned
       agricultural land. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the
       deceased at Rs.81,000 comprised of his agricultural income and income
       from other sources. Applying a multiplier of 12, the Tribunal computed
       an amount of Rs.7.56 lakhs towards the loss of dependency. A total
 D     amount of Rs 7.78 lakhs was awarded inclusive of conventional heads.
       In appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that the total income
       would work out to Rs 92,000 out of which one fourth would be deducted
       for personal expenses. Applying a multiplier of 14, the High Court
       awarded an additional amount of Rs 33,000. However, the rate of interest
       has been reduced to 9% per annum.
 E
              4. Basically two submissions have been urged on behalf of the
       appellants. First, it has been urged that the High Court did not allow for
       future prospects for which provision has to be made in view of the law
       settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance
       Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1. Second, it has been urged that
 F     there was no justification for the High Court to reduce the award of
       interest from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a.
              5. The High Court has computed the total income of the deceased
       at Rs 91,800 (Rs 55,000 being the income from agriculture and Rs 36,800
       being the income from salary). In view of the decision of the Constitution
 G     Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 25% is warranted, on
       account of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased.
       The total income, after accounting for future prospects at 25% would
       work out to Rs 1,14,000 per annum. An amount of one fourth would
       have to be reduced on account of personal expenses. The net income
       1
 H         (2017) 13 SCALE 12
    BHARTIBEN NAYABHA KER v. SIDABHA PETHABHA                                 1055
         MANKE [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

would work out to Rs 85,500. Applying a multiplier of 14 the total            A
compensation would work out to Rs 11,97,000. Adding a further amount
of Rs 70,000 under conventional heads as stipulated in the judgment in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation payable would work out
to Rs 12,67,000.
       6. We find no reason to interfere with the award of interest at 9%     B
p.a. by the High Court.
       7. The appeal is accordingly allowed by directing that the quantum
of compensation shall stand enhanced to Rs 12,67,000 on which interest
shall be payable at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. There
shall be no order as to costs.                                                C
                         CORRIGENDUM
       1. After the judgment was delivered on 5 April 2018, the matter
has been mentioned for correcting certain typographical mistakes in the
judgment. We accordingly correct the judgment dated 5 April 2018 to
the following extent:                                                         D
       (i) The last sentence of paragraph 4 shall stand corrected to read
as follows:
      “Second, it has been urged that there was no justification for the
      High Court to reduce the award of interest from 12% p.a. to 9%
                                                                              E
      p.a.”
      (ii) Paragraph 6 of the judgment shall stand substituted with the
following paragraph:
      “We find no reason to interfere with the award of interest at 9%
      p.a. by the High Court.”                                                F


Divya Pandey                                                Appeal allowed.



                                                                              G




                                                                              H