Can’t Assume Unemployed Husband Wasn't Partially Dependent On Deceased Wife’s Income: Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation
|The Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed by the motor accident claimants.
While granting compensation for spousal loss of consortium to a husband who lost his wife in a motor accident, the Supreme Court has observed that since there was no employment specified for the husband, it could not be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased wife.
The Apex Court was considering the appeals filed by the motor accident claimants.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “However, we are of the opinion that since there was no employment specified of the husband, it cannot be assumed that he would not have been at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence the family has to be comprised of 4 in which circumstances the deduction for personal expenses shall be at 1/4th.”
Advocate Chinmay Deshpande represented the Appellant while AOR Gopal Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The claim arose from the death of a pillion rider in an accident which occurred in the year 2015, as a result of which the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, sought compensation for the death of the wife of the first appellant, whose children are the second and third appellants. Before the Tribunal, the claimants asserted an income of Rs 15,000 for the deceased, while she was alive, claiming her to be a Coolie.
The Tribunal, considering the unspecified work in which the deceased was employed, took the income at Rs 7,000 and reduced 1/3rd of the income determined for personal expenses; finding the husband to be not dependent on the deceased, in which event the dependant family consisted of the deceased and her two children. A compensation was awarded totalling Rs 18,81,966. The insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court found the accident to have been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bike, whose owner was indemnified by the insurance company. As far as the additions were concerned, the Tribunal accepted 50% as future prospects, which the High Court deleted.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the deduction applicable for personal expenses was fixed at 1/3rd, considering the dependent family as one comprised of the deceased and only two children. Considering the appellant husband to be at least partially dependent on the income of the deceased, the Bench held that the family had to be comprised of 4 and the deduction for personal expenses had to be at 1/4th.
The Tribunal accepted 50% as future prospects, which the High Court deleted. The Bench referred to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), where a Constitution Bench, insofar as a self-employed person below the age of 40 years was concerned, declared an addition for future prospects, which was limited to 40%. “The appropriate multiplier to be applied was taken as 16 since the deceased was aged 35 years. The future prospects of 50% as awarded by the Tribunal was deleted which is proper, but this has to be granted at the rate of 40%”, the Bench held.
“In New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati held that loss of consortium is not restricted to the wife alone but has to be awarded to the children and parents”, it further held.
Thus, the Bench held that the claimant would be entitled to 40% for the future prospects, and the deduction for personal expenses will be 1/4th. “The medical expenses as accepted by the Tribunal based on bills has to be granted. In addition to spousal loss of consortium children too are entitled at the rate of ₹40,000”, it held while disposing of the appeal.
“We are of the opinion that what has been enhanced is only the pro-rata amounts under the conventional heads, while the percentage adopted for future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses have been reduced. We do this exercise on the trite principle that what is to be awarded is ‘just compensation’ as has been held by the Constitution Bench. The award as modified by us also does not exceed that granted by the Tribunal”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Sri Malakappa & Ors. v. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 590)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Chinmay Deshpande, AOR V. N. Raghupathy
Respondent:AOR Gopal Singh