No Inhibition To Accept Age Of Deceased As Per Post-Mortem Report: Supreme Court Grants Enhanced Compensation In Motor Accident Case
The motor accident claimants approached the Supreme Court challenging the impugned Order passed by a Single Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report in Motor Accident Compensation cases.
The appeal before the Apex Court mounted a challenge to the Impugned Order passed by a Single Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (MACT) was enhanced from Rs.4,31,680 to Rs.5,96,761.
On the aspect of multiplier factor with regard to the age of the deceased, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah explained, “Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years”.
Factual Premise
The case set up by the appellants was that one lady named Tarawati, was going on foot to the bus stand when the offending truck being driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and crushed her to death. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of her death and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000 inclusive of income from agriculture and family pension.
The appellants filed a claim petition claiming a total of Rs 15 lakh. The MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.4,31,680 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Aggrieved by the MACT’s Award, the appellants approached the High Court by filing a First Appeal and the same was partly allowed. The amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs 1,65,081. The appellants approached the Apex Court challenging this order.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the amount arrived at by the High Court of the monthly income being Rs.5,819 as against the claim of Rs.10,000 was on the lower side. As per the Bench, the total earning of the deceased from the family pension itself ought to have been considered which itself would come to Rs.5,137 to which the notional wages as a homemaker had to be added. The same had been taken by the High Court at Rs.2,500. Thus, the monthly income was set by the Bench as Rs.7,000.
“Coming to the multiplier factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the Post-Mortem Report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased”, the Bench said.
Placing reliance upon the judgment in Ningamma v United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009), the Bench asserted, “In undertaking the exercise of computation of compensation, we have verily reminded ourselves that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it is our duty to award ‘just compensation’.”
On the issue of the loss of love and affection, the Bench noted that National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) per head with escalation of 10% every three years for loss of consortium which has been interpreted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram, (2018) to include spousal, parental, and filial consortium. Thus, there being five claimants the amount was computed at Rs 2,40,000. Noting that the MACT and & the High Court didn’t consider the aspect qua loss of future prospects, the Bench concurred with the view in Rajendra Singh v National Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) and assessed loss of future prospects at 25%.
Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.13,82,500.
Cause Title: Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 366)