SMT. YASHODAMMA S. vs REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No. 15842 of 2019 SMT. YASHODAMMA S. Appellant(s) VERSUS REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE Respondent(s) GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 27.04.2018, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 5178/2017 and MFA No. 3985/2017. 3. Through the said judgment and order, the High Court has reduced the compensation to Rs. 19,74,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against the sum of Rs. 33,65,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’ for short). 4. The issues relating to the accident having occurred and the son of the claimant having died in the said accident, is not in dispute. 2 5. The age of the deceased being 23 years at the time of death, is also not in dispute. 6. The only aspect of consideration in this appeal is with regard to the appropriate income of the deceased to be reckoned and the nature of future prospects to be taken into consideration so as to assess the loss of the dependency. 7. MACT while taking note of this aspect, has arrived at a conclusion that from the evidence available on record, the deceased was a final year MCA student and as such, keeping in view the job prospects, the income is to be reckoned at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and taking note of the age of the deceased at 23 years, the future prospects at 50% was reckoned. Thus, the loss of dependency was worked out on applying the multiplier of ‘18’ at Rs.32, 40,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Only). On adding the amount towards the compensation on conventional heads, the total compensation was arrived at. 8. The High Court on the other hand, though had agreed with the MACT with regard the mode of determining the compensation, had however, reckoned the income at Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) per month and no amount was awarded towards future prospect. 9. It is in that light, that the loss of dependency had worked to Rs. 19,44,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Only). 10. Though the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, seeks to sustain the judgment of the High Court by pointing out that the High Court in fact, has referred to the 3 decision relied upon by the claimants in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others AIR 2017 SC 5157, what is necessary to be taken note is the appropriate income to be reckoned and the future prospects to be granted in the fact situation arising herein. 11. In fact, as rightly, taken note by the MACT the notional income in a matter of the present nature, could be reckoned at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only). Though, the future prospect is taken at 50% by MACT, the appropriate percentage should have been at 40% since income was decided on notional basis. Hence, to that extent, we find it necessary to correct the award passed by the MACT and the compensation be accordingly worked out in modification of the judgment passed by the High Court. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with 40% future prospects and on deduction of 50% towards personal expenses will be Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Only). This will work out to Rs. 30,24,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs and Twenty Four Thousand Only) towards loss of dependency. 12. The said amount of loss of the dependency will be payable with compensation on conventional head, as awarded by the MACT. 13. Hence, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 31,49,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand) with 6% interest per annum. 14. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT within six weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of this Order. 4 15. The Appeal is accordingly, allowed. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA) New Delhi 13th September, 2022 5 ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.15 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15842/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-04-2018 in MFA No. 5178/2017 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) SMT. YASHODAMMA S. Petitioner(s) VERSUS REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE Respondent(s) GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. (MACT MATTER ) Date : 13-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Adv. Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv. Ms. Chandni Mehra, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Mittal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (signed order is placed on the file)