High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed.

Nutan Rani and Anr. v. Gurmail Singh and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2018
Neutral Citation:[2018] 6 S.C.R. 607

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dipak Misra
  • A. M. Khanwilkar
  • Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date
2018-07-20
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s computation is set aside. Future prospects are added at 40% per Pranay Sethi, the deduction of one-third for personal expenses is maintained, leading to a total compensation of Rs. 6,41,200. Interest is awarded at 9% per annum from the date of petition until payment. No costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nutan Rani
  • Anr.

Respondents

  • Gurmail Singh
  • Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Siddharth Mittal
  • • Nayan Nepal
  • • Ms. Usha Nandini. V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a motor accident that killed a 30-year-old salesman, Ashok Kumar, employed as a commission agent. The Tribunal awarded compensation but the High Court enhanced it, while reducing the rate of interest. The appellants (heirs and legal representatives of the deceased) challenge the High Court's approach to the computation of income for the purpose of dependency loss. They contend the High Court erred by not granting future prospects and by deducting one-third of the income towards personal expenditure, particularly since the deceased’s monthly income was relatively low (Rs. 3,000). They further challenge the reduction of interest from 12% to 6% by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was mistaken in omitting future prospects, applying the Constitution Bench’s decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and allowing a 40% addition for future prospects given the deceased’s age. After deducting one-third for personal expenses, the court calculated loss of dependency, added loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, culminating in a total award of Rs. 6,41,200. Interest was awarded at 9% per annum from the petition date. The appeal is allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 166

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Future prospects in compensation under Pranay Sethi (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court erred by not granting the benefit of future prospects and by deducting one-third of the income as personal expenditure, particularly since the deceased’s income was modest (Rs. 3,000 per month). They urged applying the Pranay Sethi framework (40% future prospects) and objected to the reduction of interest from 12% to 6%.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 16 SCC 680PositiveCourt applies the Pranay Sethi framework for future prospects, endorsing the 40% addition based on the age of the deceased.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Nutan Rani and Anr. v. Gurmail Singh and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

607 [2018] 6 S.C.R. 607 NUTAN RANI AND ANR. A v. GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2018) JULY 20, 2018 B ## **[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]** _Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166 – Compensation – Award of – Death in motor accident of 30 years old salesman having salary_ C _of Rs.3,000 per month – Computation of income of the deceased – Addition on account of future prospects – Deduction of one-third towards personal expenditure – Propriety of – Held: While computing income of the deceased, an addition of 40% on account of towards future prospects, in view of the age of the deceased, is warranted as also deduction of one-third towards personal expenses_ D _is proper – High Court erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased – Total compensation payable to the legal heirs calculated accordingly._ **A 30 years old salesman died in a motor vehicle accident and his heirs were awarded compensation by the tribunal which was enhanced by the High Court. In the instant appeal, issue arose whether the High Court while computing the income of the deceased was correct in not adding on account of future prospects and deducting 1/3[rd] of the amount towards personal expenditure.** E F ## **Allowing the appeal, the Court** **HELD: The High Court erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased. Having due regard to *** _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v Pranay Sethi’s**_ **case, an addition of 40% on account of towards future prospects, in view of the age of the deceased, is warranted. The deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is proper. The total compensation payable to the appellants in terms of the judgment in** _**Pranay Sethi**_ **is computed as Rs.6,41,200/-. Interest** G H 607 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. - A **is allowed on the said amount at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until payment. [Paras 6-8][609-D-F; 610-A-B]** _*National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi_ ( **2017) 16 SCC 680 – referred to.** ## B ## **Case Law Reference** **(2017) 16 SCC 680 referred to Para 6** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2018. C From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 1949 of 1998 (O&M). Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Advs. for the Appellants. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.** 1. The appeal is from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 23 February 2011, in a first appeal against a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. E 2. The appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of Ashok Kumar who died as a result of an accident on 31 March 1994. He was 30 years old at the time of the accident and worked as a commission agent/salesman with a firm in Ludhiana. The accident took place while he was travelling in a bus belonging to the Chandigarh Transport F Undertaking. While he was alighting from the bus, it moved abruptly which caused him to fall. The fall resulted in serious injuries and led to his death on the following day. 3. The heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the tribunal, to seek G compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The Tribunal held that negligence on the part of the bus driver was not proved. However, an amount of Rs.50,000 was awarded towards no fault liability together with interest at 12 per cent per annum. H 4. In appeal, the High Court drew an adverse inference on account of the non-examination of the bus driver and awarded a total NUTAN RANI AND ANR. v. GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS. 609 [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] compensation of Rs 3,98,500. However, the rate of interest was reduced A to 6 per cent per annum. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the heirs are in appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the award of compensation by urging that: - i. No addition on account of future prospects was made; - ii. The High Court erred in deducting 1/3[rd] of the amount towards personal expenditure without considering that the income of the deceased was extremely low, at Rs. 3,000 per month. A person earning a low income, who has a family to feed, would not spend 1/3[rd] of his income towards his personal expenditure; and B C - iii. The rate of interest was reduced from 12% as awarded by the MACT to 6% without adequate reason. 6. We find merit in the submission that the High Court erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased. Having due regard to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd.** v **Pranay Sethi[1]** , an addition towards future prospects is warranted. The deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is proper. 7 The decision of the Constitution Bench in **Pranay Sethi** (supra), warrants an addition of 40 per cent on account of future prospects, having regard to the age of the deceased. The total compensation payable to the appellants in terms of the judgment in **Pranay Sethi** is computed below: · Income : Rs 3,000/- D E F - Percentage increase towards future prospects : 40% - 3000 x 40% = Rs 1,200/- - Total income : Rs 4,200/- - One-third deduction : Rs 1,400/- G - Income after deduction : Rs 2,800/- - Annual income = Rs 2,800 x 12 = Rs 33,600/- - Multiplier applied : 17 (since age of deceased was 30 years) - Loss of dependency : Rs 33,600 x 17 = Rs 5,71,200/- H 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. · A Loss of consortium : Rs 40,000/· Loss of estate : Rs 15,000/- · Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000/- - Total compensation = Rs 6,41,200/- B 8. Interest is allowed on the aforesaid amount at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until payment. 9. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. C Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed. D E F G H