SUPREME COURT VERDICT ON FIXING OF FUTURE PROSPECTS IN CASE OF DEATH OF A HOUSEWIFE AND A MINOR.

 

SUPREME COURT VERDICT ON FIXING OF FUTURE PROSPECTS IN CASE OF DEATH OF A HOUSEWIFE AND A MINOR.

Whether award of future prospects is allowed in case of death of housewife and a minor in a motor vehicle accident. The answer is it is allowed in case of a house wife and not allowed in case of a minor. This aspect has been clearly discussed in 2021(1) TNMAC 785(SC) in Rajendra singh and others  VS  National insurance co ltd and others.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The deceased was a housewife aged about 30 years. The 2^nd deceased was her daughter aged about 12 years. The claimants are the husband/father of the deceased and three minor siblings. The two deceased on 25/12/12 were travelling in a horse cart along with some others to a religious congregation. The horse cart was hit by a bus resulting in their death. The tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at RS.36,000/ pa. and after ¼ deduction towards personal expenses, with a multiplier of 17 awarded a compensation of  Rs.4,59,000/. The tribunal then deducted 50% on ground of contributory negligence as the horse cart was stated to have been in the middle of the road when the accident took place. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/ was then added as loss of consortium and Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses leading to an award total of Rs.3,54,500/ with interest at the rate of 7.5%

           In so far as minor child is concerned, the notional income was assessed at Rs.36,000/ pa. applying a 50% deduction  towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 15, the compensation was awarded at Rs.2,70,000/ out of which 50% was again deducted towards contributory negligence. A sum of Rs.25,000/ was added towards funeral expenses leading to an award total of Rs.1,60,000/ with interest at the rate of 7.5%

       The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed by the high court and thus the present appeals.

          Learned counsels for the appellants submits that the notional income of the first deceased has been wrongly fixed ignoring her income of Rs.5000/pm from dairy farm business. Nothing has been awarded towards future prospects. With regard to the 2^nd deceased it was submitted that she was studying in a school and her notional income should have been assessed at Rs.54,000/ per year. Nothing has been  awarded towards towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The common submission in both the appeals was that deduction on ground of contributory negligence was unsustainable and unjustified. Reliance was placed on kajal Vs Jagdish chand & ors., 2020(1) TNMAC 328(SC) : AIR 2020 SC 776, to contend that the income of the deceased child should have been assessed at Rs.4,846 per month.

         Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appeals do not merit interference. There is no evidence with regard to the claimed business income of the first deceased. The finding of contributory negligence merits no interference. In the absence of any proof of income, the question of future prospects simply does not arise. Similarly, the 1nd deceased was a minor school going child who also had no income and therefore the question for grant of future prospects with regard to her also does not arise.

     No evidence has been led by the appellant with regard to any income of the first deceased from diary business. The deceased were travelling in a horse cart along with others to a religious congregation. It is not the case of the Respondents that the first deceased was driving the horse cart or was the owner of the same, much less that it was being driven under her supervision. The deceased was travelling as a passengers along with others. The deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence in both the appeals is therefore held to be totally unjustified and unsustainable. The finding with regard to  contributory negligence against both the deceased are therefore set aside.

      The first deceased was a house wife aged about 30 years. In Lata wadhwa VS state of bihar,2002 (1) LLN 617 (SC) : 2001(8) SCC 197, the apex court has observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years, who were active in life should be assessed at Rs.36,000 per annum. A distinction was also drawn with regard to elderly ladies in the age group of 62 to 72 who would be more adept in discharge of housewife duties by age and experience, and the value of services rendered by them has been taken at Rs.20,000/pa.

In Arun kumar Agarwal VS National insurance co ltd., 2010 (2) TNMAC 129 (SC) : 2010 (9) SCC 218, the tribunal assessed the notional income of the housewife at Rs.5,000/pm, but without any rational or reasoning concluded that she was a non – earning member and reduced the same to Rs.2500, which was affirmed by high court. Disapproving the same, the assessed income was restored. The notional income of the first deceased is therefore held to be Rs.5000/pm at the time of death. The compensation on that basis with a deduction of ¼  i.e. Rs.15,000/ towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs.7,65,000. If the deceased had survived, in view of observations in Lata wadhwa, her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reasons the appellants should be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted. Hence total compensation payable to the death of mother is Rs.11,96,000/

The second deceased was a school going child aged about 12 years. She had a hole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the accident at a very tender age. The loss of a human life ultimately at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to be visualized and understood. Grand of non – pecuniary damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation of life is, therefore called far. This determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim, but rather on the capacity or ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained alive. The determination of a just and proper compensation to the appellants with regard to the deceased child, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to pay more than Rs.2,95,000 by granting any further compensation under separate head of “future prospects”