Operation Of Statute Providing Greater Benefits Is Not Obstructed By Pranay Sethi Judgement: Supreme Court

PRANAY SETHI JUDGEMENT

In Pranay Sethi judgement, the following points were observed by the court.

• If the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age, then while determining the income, an additional 50% of the actual salary of the income of the deceased would be considered.
• If the deceased was self-employed or had a fixed salary, then an addition of 40% of the established income would be provided, if he was under 40 years of age.
• While determining multiplicand, the court and tribunals must follow the rules of Sarla Verma and deduct the personal and living expenses.
• The selection of multipliers must be done as it is provided in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
• Reasonable figures on conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses were decided to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.

THE APPEALS MADE

• In the first appeal, the Insurance Company challenged the award by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Allahabad of Rs.24,43,432/- which was awarded with 7% interest, and considered the claim with respect to an accident which had resulted in the death of one Jairam Shukla.
• In the second appeal, the Insurance Company alleged that sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions which were arrived at by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. As per the said Rule, the prospects of a deceased person must be added to the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

• The first appeal was rejected by the Allahabad High Court previously.
• For the second appeal, the bench noted that in the judgement of Pranay Sethi, reading with the Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it was from the standpoint of arriving at "just compensation".
• The bench observed that, as per the Pranay Sethi judgement, if the deceased is between 50 to 60 years of age, limiting the prescription to 15% should not be done.
• The Supreme Court further observed that the judgement in Pranay Sethi does not limit operation of a statutory provision and granted greater benefits in the matter of Motor Accident Compensation.
• Unless a statutory instrument is found to be invalid, it can be used to devise a formula which affords better or greater benefit, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed.
• Thus, the bench dismissed the appeal.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?