Supreme court rule on Motor accident claims –
principles of Assessment – Fatal cases – precedents relied on.
A
five judge bench of supreme court of india has given a landmark judgement in
case of motor vehicle claims in National insurance co.ltd., VS Pranay
sethi and others 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC). It has given guidelines for
arriving compensation in death cases.
Compensation – Quantum –
Determination – Standardization of
Income
– Future prospects – Addition of, in respect of person self employed
Or
on fixed salary –
Age
below 40 years : 40%
Age
between 40 – 50 years : 25%
Age
between 50 – 60 years : 10%
Income
– Future prospects – Addition of, in respect of person in permanent job –
Age
below 40 years : 50%
Age
between 40 – 50 years : 30%
Age
between 50 – 60 years : 15%
PERSONAL
EXPENSES : Deduction towards – Ratio in Sarala varma followed.
MULTIPLIER
– SELECTION OF - Table in Sarala varma
to be followed – Age of the deceased to be taken as basis for selection.
Conventional
heads – compensation fixed:
Loss
of estate : Rs.15,000/
Loss
of consortium : Rs. 40,000/
Funeral
expenses : Rs. 15,000/
Three
judge bench decision in Rajesh is not binding precedent.
Reshma kumara and others VS Madan mohan and another
2013(1)TNMAC 481 (SC)
Multiplier – selection of
i)
Age group above 15 yrs
Age group
Multiplier
15
-20 18
21-25 18
Reduced
by one unit for every 5 years
26-30
17
31-35 16
36-40 15
41-45 14
46-50
13
Reduced
by 2 units for every 5 years
51-55
11
56-60
9
61-65
7
Above
65
5
No
necessity to seek guidance of second schedule in MV act
ii)
Age group below and upto 15 years
Assessment as indicated in second
schedule subject to correction pointed out in sarala verma in column (6) of
table to be followed
Income – future prospects – addition towards
– para
19 of sarala verma to be followed
Age
below 40 years : 50%
Age
between 40 – 50 years : 30%
Age
between 50 – 60 years : Nil
Deduction
towards personal expenses
i)
Where deceased was married:
No.
of dependants
Deduction
2
to 3
1/3
4
to 6 ¼
Above
6
1/5
ii)
Where deceased was unmarried
Claimants Deduction
Parents 50%
Widowed mother and non – earning
Sisters & brothers 1/3
Sarala verma and others VS
Delhi transport corporation and another
2009(2) TAC 677(SC)
i)Future prospects;
Age
below 40 years : 50%
Age
between 40 – 50 years : 30%
Age
between 50 – 60 years : Nil
Deduction
towards personal expenses
i)
Where deceased was married:
No.
of dependants
Deduction
2
to 3
1/3
4
to 6 ¼
Above
6
1/5
ii)
Where deceased was unmarried
Claimants Deduction
Parents 50%
Widowed mother and non – earning
Sisters & brothers 1/3
Multiplier – selection of
i)
Age group above 15 yrs
Age group
Multiplier
15
-20 18
21-25 18
Reduced
by one unit for every 5 years
26-30
17
31-35 16
36-40 15
41-45 14
46-50
13
Reduced
by 2 units for every 5 years
51-55
11
56-60
9
61-65
7
66-70 5
Amrit banu shali – 2012 ACJ SC 2002
Multiplier – selection of – To be
based on age of the deceased and not on basis of age of dependants. Age of the
dependants has no nexus with computation of compensation as there may be number
of dependants with different age, and therefore age of dependants has no nexus
with the computation of compensation.
New india assurance co.ltd., VS
yogesh devi & others
2012 (1) TNMAC 371 (SC)
Assessment of income
Income derived by owner of buses and
agricultural land, cannot form legal basis for determining compensation payable
to dependants. Even after death of deceased – owner, buses and agricultural
land will continue with family and fetch income – only loss would be amount
required for engaging services of a manager to manage asset / buses.
Nagappa VS Gurudayal singh and others
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
Just compensation.
Award of compensation more than
claimed – claims tribunal – power of -
contention that tribunal has no jurisdiction to award higher amount of
compensation than what is claimed even though it is not likely to cause
prejudice to the insurance company – whether in an appropriate case
compensation more than claimed can be awarded – held : yes. There is no
restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed;
Tribunal / court is to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable on the
basis of evidence on record; if required court may permit amendment to the
claim petition; there is no question of claim being time – barred; it cannot be
contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action.
Syed basher Ahamed and others Vs
Mohd. Jameel and another
2009 (1) TAC 794 (SC)
Income of deceased – determination of
For arriving at just compensation, it
is necessary to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the
support of himself and his dependants at the time of his death and the amount
which he was accustomed to spend upon himself. This exercise has to be on the
basis of the data, brought on record by the claimants which again cannot be
accurately ascertained and necessarily involves an elemant of estimate or it
may partly be even a conjecture.
Vimal kanwar & others VS kishore dan & others
2013 (1) TNMAC 641 (SC)
Assessment – salaried income –
deductions –
GPF,pension and insurance receivable
by claimants are not pecuniary advantage and not liable for deduction. Salary
received by claimant on compassionate appointment not pecuniary advantage
liable for deduction. Income means actual income less tax.
National insurance co.ltd., VS Indira
srivastava and others
2008 (1) TAC 424 (SC)
The tribunal can only make statutory
deductions such as income tax and professional
tax and any other contribution which is not repayable by the employer from the
salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for
computing dependency compensation.
2010 (4) TAC 29 (SC)
Shyamwati Sharma and others VS karam singh
and others
Deduction of 30% of the income
towards income tax is allowed.
Santosh devi VS
National insurance co.ltd., and others
2010(2) TNMAC 1 (SC)
Income – Future prospects – rule of
30% addition in income as laid down in sarala verma applicable to persons self
employed, persons with fixed wages, persons employed in unorganized and private
sectors also. Dependants of deceased – Merely because sons of deceased are aged
26 years and 23 years and not minor, it cannot be assumed that they were no
longer dependants of deceased. There are 5 dependants and it will not be possible
for a person having income of Rs.7,500/ to spend 1/3 on himself, leaving 2/3
for family consisting of 5 persons. Such a person would at most spend 1/10th
of his income on himself, but not 1/3rd. – Deduction of 1/10th of income,
held proper.
Manjuri bera VS Oriental insurance
co. ltd., and another
2007 ACJ 1279 (SC)
Legal representative – daughter –
whether a married daughter not dependant on the deceased is entitled to file
claim for the death of her father – held : yes.
Montford brothers of st. Gabriel
& another Vs United india insurance co and another etc.
2014 (1) TNMAC 272 (SC)
Legal representative – scope of –
Death of brother of society/church, who renounced world and relation with his
family – whether society a legal representative of deceased and entitled to
claim compensation – held: yes.
New india assurance co.ltd., VS
Somwati and others
2020 (2) TNMAC 374 (SC)
Whether wife alone entitled for consortium?
Whether consortium can be awarded for children and parents also? Held:
Consortium is not limited to spousal consortium but also includes parental
consortium and filial consortium.
Chikkamma and another VS Parvathamma and
another
2017 (1) TNMAC 740 (SC)
Deceased bachelor, self employed.
For self employed person income of
Rs.9,000/ fixed. For bachelor 50% income for personal expenses confirmed.
Kishan gopal & another VS Lala
& others
2013 (2)TNMAC 358 (SC)
Deceased aged 10years. Rs. 50,000/ awarded as compensation in
toto.
Manju devi & another VS Musafir
paswan and another
2005 ACJ 99 (SC)
Fatal accidents – principles of assessment.
Multiplier method – award of
compensation should be made by multiplier method as it ensures payment of just
compensation and it brings uniformity and certainty to the awards. Deceased boy
aged 13. Apex court assessed notional income for a non – earning person at
Rs.15,000/pa. adopted multiplier of 15 and allowed Rs.2,25,000/
Oriental insurance co. ltd., VS Syed
Ibrahim and others
2007 ACJ 2816 (SC)
Driving license Driver had license to
drive light motor vehicle whereas he was
driving heavy goods vehicle at the time of accident. It was held that there was
no valid driving license. Whether insurance company liable: NO. insurance
company may recover the amount paid from the owner by initiating proceedings
before the executing court.
Andal 7 2 others VS Avinav kannan and
another
2019 (1) TNMAC 54 (DB)(madras)
Notional income.
High court evolving formula for
determining notional income considering rise in inflation index, fixed
Rs.11,000/ as notional income.
Chinthamani & 2 others VS Amman
granites & another
Fixation of income under structured
formula in second schedule.
It was introduced in the year 1994,
fixing highest slab at Rs.40,000/p.a. Second schedule not amended depending
upon cost of living as required by sec 163 A(3). The tribunal is bound to
consider cost of living for fixing compensation. For year 2017-2018 a sum of
Rs.40,000/pa shown in second schedule for year 1994-1995 to be revised to
Rs.2,40,000/
Syed sadiq etc VS United india
insurance co.ltd.
2014(1) TNMAC 459(SC)
Functional disability
For a vegitable vendor income of Rs.
6,500pm was taken. He got amputation of right leg.Disability certified by
doctor to extent of 24% in respect of upper limb and 85% to the lower limb.
Injured a vegetable vendor – occupation not confined to selling vegetables from
a particular location but also involves procuring vegetables from whole sale
market or farmers would require 100% mobility – In manual labour cases, loss of
limb is equivalent to loss of livelihood. Apex court determined 85% to
determine loss of income applied multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation.
Shashikala & others VS Gangalakshmamma & another
2015(1) TNMAC 785 (SC)
Assessment of income based on IT
returns
IT returns produced by claimants for
years 2005 – 2006 & 2006 – 2007 – high court taking average of income of
two assessment years for fixing income – not proper – IT return for year 2006 –
2007 alone ought to have been considered, when accident took place on
14.12.2006.
Posts
0 Comments