DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 7th May 2021
JUDGES:
Honourable Chief Justice of India Shri. N.V. Ramana,
Honourable Justice Surya Kant, Honourable Justice Aniruddha Bose.
PARTIES:
(Appellant)
Rahul Sharma & Anr.
(Respondents)
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
OVERVIEW
The case challenges the modified compensation part of a previous judgment of the High Court of Delhi.
The appellant had lost his parents in an accident near Punjab. The vehicle in which they were travelling was insured by the National Insurance Company.
The initial petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi, which stated that the mother of the appellant was not eligible for future prospects in her income as she was self-employed.
This judgment was challenged by a special appeal in the Supreme Court which utilized a previous judgment and stated that she will be liable for 40% of future prospects in her income even though she is self-employed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 249 of Indian Penal Code - this section states that any individual who tries to alter the appearance of any Indian coin by performing any operation on it, to pass that coin as a coin of some other description shall be liable to fine along with imprisonment which can extend up to seven years.
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code - under this section, any individual who is responsible for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with either imprisonment for life, or for a term which can extend to ten years, and will also be liable to fine. Here, if there was the presence of intention in the act of causing death, or even if it was done to cause bodily injury which could lead to death, then it will lead to imprisonment which can be extended to a period of ten years or fine, or both.
Section 427 of Indian Penal Code - as per this act, any individual who commits mischief which leads to either a loss or damage caused, for up to fifty rupees or more, shall be subjected to imprisonment which can extend for a period of up to two years or fine or both.
Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act - this section discusses the liability to pay for compensation in the cases where the principle of no-fault is involved. It states that if an individual suffers some permanent disability or death because of an accident which is arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles then the owners of the vehicle shall jointly be liable to pay for the compensation.
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act - this section states that an individual can make an application for compensation, which is arising out of an accident, the nature of which has already been mentioned in Section 165, can be made by: the individual who has suffered the injury, or the owner of the property or the legal representatives of the individual who passed away in the accident, or by the individual who has been authorized by the one who has suffered the injury or by the legal representative of the deceased.
ISSUES
Whether the appeal to challenge the previous judgment of the Delhi High Court should be admitted?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
In this case, the appellant has challenged the previous judgment (of the year 2017) of the High Court of Delhi on this issue.
The facts of the case state, that it was in the year 2010 that, the vehicle by which the parents of the appellant were travelling met with an accident, with a truck near Punjab. However, it was unfortunate that they succumbed to their injuries. After this, an FIR was filed in Punjab under Sections 249. 304A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Their vehicle, however, was insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd.
Thus, the petition that the appellant had put forward before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, stated that, as per Section 140 and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation should be granted for the death of their parents.
The appeal which we are discussing (the one challenging the previous judgment) is regarding the death of the mother of the appellant, who was of 37 years of age and was a self-employed individual.
It was then that the tribunal decided, that the amount of compensation should be about Rs. 41,55,235. They utilized an income tax report to decode her income, which was about Rs. 2,55,349 on an annual basis. Further, the court relied on the judgment of ‘Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation ’ where about 50% of an addition was made with respect to the individuals being dependent on the deceased, about 1/3rd of her income was deducted on the account of personal as well as living expenses. And the non-monetary compensation was calculated to be around Rs. 3,25,000. Since, it was the NIC who was the insurer, they were held liable to pay Rs. 41,55,235 along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date when the petition for claim had been filed.
In response to this, an appeal was filed by the insurance company before the Delhi High Court which lead to the disposal of the appeal filed by the appellants. As per the High Court, the monetary compensation was around Rs. 19,16,000, and the non-monetary damages were calculated to be around Rs. 2,50,000. They had also deducted about 50% of the income for the personal and living expenses. They stated that the deceased was not eligible for future prospects as she was self-employed.
The modified compensation part of this judgement has been challenged by the appellants in the Special Leave which is presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The court utilised the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi ’ to state that, in the cases where the deceased is below the age of 40, and is self-employed, even then a 40% addition will be made to their income as future prospects. Since, the present case meets these requirements, thus an addition of 40% should be made in the income of the deceased, while the rest of the conditions can be kept as they were according to the judgement of the Hugh Court of Delhi.
After all the calculations, the court stated that the loss of dependency will be Rs. 35,74,890. The final amount awarded as compensation to the appellant was decided to be Rs. 38,24,890 along with an interest of 9% annually, from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
CONCLUSION
Losing a loved one has never been and will never be easy. As we are in the midst of a pandemic, we are pretty aware of how tough it has become to claim insurance from insurance companies and all the set of formalities which haunt our minds when we are already going through something so disturbing, is just unnecessarily exhausting.
When we talk about the case at hand, losing both the parents would have been a very daunting experience for the appellant, and the contention to challenge the modified compensation part, would not have been in the picture, had the High Court been a bit more careful about the previous judgements regarding ‘self-employment’ for the future prospects of the income of an individual.
The final judgement by the Supreme Court can be considered as the perfect solution for this scenario as it is a calculated and balanced one. It does take into account all the necessary scenarios and aims at catering justice to the appellants.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
