NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 20882 OF 2017
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1636/2016]
BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANI MUTHUPANDI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. On 03.03.2017, this Court passed the following
order:-
1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of
compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’)
and the High Court, the petitioners have
filed this Special Leave Petition. Taking
note of the fact that the deceased was aged
52 years, the Tribunal in the award dated
22.10.2008, declined to grant any addition
for future prospects in the salary and
adopted the multiplier as “6.31”. An amount
of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards loss of
consortium to the wife and Rs.2,500/-
towards funeral expenses. The compensation
amount was to carry interest at the rate of
7.5 per cent per annum.
1
2. The claimants/petitioners, not
satisfied with the compensation, approached
the High Court.
3. As per the impugned Judgment dated
24.03.2015, the appeal was disposed of. The
learned Judge took note of the decision of
this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others
v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1
in adopting the multiplier and observed
that going by the said decision, the
multiplier to be applied is “11”. However,
taking note of the fact that the deceased
would have retired at the age of 60 years,
fixed the multiplier as “8”. In the matter
of consortium, it was observed that “...
deceased died not in the prime of his youth
but at his middle age”, and hence the widow
was granted consortium of Rs.25,000/-. No
addition was made towards future prospects.
4. It is shocking and disturbing that the
learned Judge declined to follow the
principles laid down by this Court in
unmistakeable terms in Sarla Verma (supra)
as far as multiplier is concerned. We do
not want to say anything more. Therefore,
in this case, the multiplier is taken as
“11”.
5. As far as consortium is concerned,
this Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir
Singh and others2 has held that consortium
is the right of the spouse to the company,
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121
2 (2013) 9 SCC 54
2
care, help, comfort, guidance, society,
solace, affection and sexual relations with
his or her mate. It was also held in the
above case that the children are also
entitled for award of compensation for loss
of love, care and guidance. This emotional
element has nothing to do with the expected
life span. Having observed that it was time
to revisit compensation granted under the
conventional heads, it was held that the
widow was entitled to loss of consortium to
the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards loss of
love, care and guidance for minor children,
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also
awarded.
6. It was also held in Rajesh (supra)
that in case, the deceased is above the age
of 50 years, the enhancement of 15 per cent
was to be given towards loss of future
prospects.
7. Close to Rajesh (supra), there was
another decision of this Court, again of
the strength of three Judges, in Reshma
Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and
another3, rendered on 02.04.2013.
8. While Rajesh (supra) went a step ahead
of Sarla Verma (supra) in awarding 15 per
cent enhancement towards loss of future
prospects, the decision in Reshma Kumari
(supra) reaffirmed the principles laid down
in Sarla Verma (supra) which declined any
addition towards future prospects after the
3 (2013) 9 SCC 65
3
age of 50 years.
9. It may be noted that there was no
reference of Reshma Kumari (supra) in
Rajesh (supra), apparently, since the said
judgment had not been reported by the time
Rajesh (supra) was rendered.
10. On 02.07.2014, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pushpa and others4, taking note
of the conflicting positions as far as
addition of future prospects after the age
of 50 years, in Reshma Kumari (supra) and
Rajesh (supra), has made a Reference of
this aspect to a larger Bench. We are
informed that the Reference is still
pending.
11. Under the above circumstances, we are
inclined to pass an interim Order on
compensation as far as the undisputed areas
are concerned and then post this petition
after the Reference is answered by the
larger Bench.
12. Therefore, by way of an interim
measure, it is ordered that the petitioners
shall be entitled to enhancement of
compensation by fixing the multiplier as
“11”. The widow shall be entitled for loss
of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
and the children together are entitled to
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of love, care, guidance and protection. The
compensation shall carry interest at the
4 S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014
4
rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing
of the claim petition. The Insurance
Company shall re-work the compensation as
above and deposit the amount with the
Tribunal within three weeks. On such
deposit, it will be open to the claimants
to withdraw the same.
13. As far as enhancement under the head
“future prospects”, post this petition
after the Reference is answered by the
larger Bench.”
3. In view of the recent judgment dated 31.10.2017
rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi &
Others, reported in (2017) 13 SCALE 12, the claimants
are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future
prospects. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of as
follows:
In addition to what has already been
ordered in the order extracted above, the
claimants shall be entitled to further
enhancement of 15% on future prospects. In all
other respects including the rate of interest
also the order extracted above is maintained.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
5
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
6. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[AMITAVA ROY]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 05, 2017.
6
