- Rajendra Singh and Ors (Appelant) Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors (Respondent)
- Supreme Court of India- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13964 of 2018
HELD THAT
Passengers travelling in vehicle cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence of the driver of the vehicle and claim cannot be reduced on the same ground.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The deceased in the appeal was a housewife aged about 30 years. The second 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 25.12.2012 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 first deceased at Rs.36,000/ per annum and after 1/4 th 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 the minor child is concerned, the notional income was assessed at Rs.36,000/ per annum, 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.
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPEAL FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notional income of the first deceased has been wrongly fixed ignoring her income of Rs.5000/ per month from dairy farm business. Nothing has been awarded towards future prospects. With regard to the second 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 loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The submission in the appeals was that deduction on ground of contributory negligence was unsustainable and unjustified. Reliance was placed on Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 776, to contend that the income of the deceased child should have been assessed at Rs.4846/ per month.
Held, while allowing the appeal:
1. No evidence had been led by the Appellant with regard to any income of the first deceased from dairy business. The deceased were travelling in a horse cart along with others to a religious congregation. It was 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 were travelling as passengers along with others. The fact that the horse cart may have been in middle of the road at the time of the accident, no fault could be attributed to the deceased holding them liable to contributory negligence and denial of full compensation. The deduction of fifty percent towards contributory negligence in both the appeals was therefore held to be totally unjustified and unsustainable.
The finding with regard to contributory negligence against both the deceased were therefore set aside.
2. The second deceased was a school going child aged about twelve years. She had a whole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the accident at a very tender age for no fault of hers even before she could start to understand the beauty and joys of life with all its ups and downs. The loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of the child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to be visualised and understood. Grant of non-pecuniary damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life was therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child was very difficult to quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties.
Therefore, the courts have used the expression just compensation to get over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation. This determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained alive. The compensation was for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant would have enjoyed had the child not died at the tender age. Since the child was studying in a school and opportunities in life would undoubtedly abound for her as the years would have rolled by, compensation must also be granted with regard to future prospects. It could safely be presumed that education would have only led to her better growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under non-pecuniary damages.
3. The deduction on account of contributory negligence had already been held to be unsustainable. 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 did not persuade to enhance the same any further by granting any further compensation under the separate head of future prospects.
EARLIER in case of In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satender, (2006) 13 SCC 60, the deceased victim of the accident was a nine year old school going child. Considering the claim for loss of future prospects in absence of a regular income, it was observed that the compensation so determined had to be just and proper by a judicious approach and not fixed arbitrarily or whimsically. The uncertainties of a young life were noticed in the following terms:
"12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in
career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation."
JUDGEMENT
The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13964 of 2018 is allowed and the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16261 of 2018 is allowed to the extent indicated in the order only.
DISCLAIMER: The case law produced here is only for information and knowledge of readers. In case of necessity do consult with professionals.
CAclubindia
