RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 579, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2624 of 2020)
JUNE 18, 2020
[NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Accident – Enhancement of compensation –
Victims, a housewife and her minor daughter, were travelling in a
horse cart, which was hit by a bus resulting in their death – The
Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,54,500/- for the housewife
and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the minor child – Appeal for enhancement of
compensation dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
Deduction of 50% made by the Tribunal towards contributory
negligence while calculating the award is totally unjustified and
unsustainable since no fault can be attributed to the deceased as
they were passengers, not the driver or the owner of the house cart
– Furthermore, if the housewife had survived, her contributions to
the welfare and care of the family would have only been enhanced
by time – Therefore, Appellants entitled to future prospects at the
rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses
already granted – Thus, total compensation for housewife enhanced
to Rs. 11,96,000/- – Insofar as minor child is concerned, in the
entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case compensation
enhanced to Rs. 2,95,000/-
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. No evidence has 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 is 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 can be attributed
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 579
579
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
to the deceased holding them liable to contributory negligence
and denial of full compensation. This Court fails to understand
how the deceased who were passengers in the horse cart can be
held liable in any manner. The deduction of 50% towards
contributory negligence in both the appeals is therefore held to
be totally unjustified and unsustainable. The finding with regard
to contributory negligence against both the deceased are
therefore set aside. [Para 8][583-A-C]
2. The notional income of the first deceased-housewife is
therefore held to be Rs.5000/- per month at the time of death.
The compensation on that basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e.
Rs.15,000/- towards personal expenses with a multiplier of 17 is
assessed at Rs.7,65,000/-. If the deceased had survived, in view
of observations in Lata Wadhwa, her skills as a matured and
skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the
family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been
enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants
shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition
to the loss of consortium and future expenses already granted.
This Court therefore assesses the total compensation payable to
the appellants in the first appeal at Rs.11,96,000/-. [Para 
11]
[584-F-H]
3. The deduction on account of contributory negligence has
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 does not persuade this Court to enhance the same
any further from Rs.2,95,000/- by granting any further
compensation under the separate head of “future prospects”.
[Para 15][586-F-G]
Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2010) 9 SCC 218 : [2010] 9 SCR 303; New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender (2006) 13 SCC 60 :
[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 745 – relied on.
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 776 :
(2020) 4 SCC 413 – distinguished.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197 :
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578; R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009)
14 SCC 1 : [2009] 10 SCR 87 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 4 SCC 413
distinguished
Para 6
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 578
referred to
Para 9
[2010] 9 SCR 303
relied on
Para 10
[2009] 10 SCR 87
referred to
Paras 12 & 13
[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 745
relied on
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2624
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2017 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in A.F.O. No. 82 of 2015.
With
C.A. No. 2625 of 2020
Yunus Malik, Anish Maheshwari, Aman Malik, Samir Malik, Sanjay
Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Krishna Kant Dubey, and Gautam
Das, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed two appeals
arising from separate orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) deciding two accident
compensation claims. The appellants had claimed further enhancement
of compensation.
3. The deceased in the first 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
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
income of the first deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum and after 1/4th
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%.
4. 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%.
5. The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed
by the High Court and thus the present appeals.
6. 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 common submission in both 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.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present
appeals do not merit interference. There is no evidence with regard to
the claimed business income of the first deceased. The finding of
contributory negligence merits no interference. In absence of any proof
of income, the question of future prospects simply does not arise. Similarly,
the second deceased was a minor school going child who also had no
income and therefore the question for grant of future prospects with
regard to her also does not arise.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
8. We have considered the submission on behalf of the parties.
No evidence has 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 is 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 can be attributed to the deceased
holding them liable to contributory negligence and denial of full
compensation. We fail to understand how the deceased who were
passengers in the horse cart can be held liable in any manner. The
deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence in both the appeals is
therefore held to be totally unjustified and unsustainable. The finding
with regard to contributory negligence against both the deceased are
therefore set aside.
9. The first deceased was a housewife aged about 30 years. In
Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197, this court had
observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by
housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife
between the age group of 34 to 59 years who were active in life should
be assessed at Rs 36,000 per annum. A distinction was also drawn with
regard to
elderly ladies in the age group of 62 to 72 who would be more
adept in discharge of housewife duties by age and experience, and the
value of services rendered by them has been taken at Rs 20,000 per
annum.
10. In Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2010) 9 SCC 218, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the
housewife at Rs.5,000/- per month, but without any rational or reasoning
concluded that she was a non-earning member and reduced the same to
Rs.2,500/-, which was affirmed by the High Court. Disapproving the
same and restoring the assessed income, this Court observed at
Paragraphs 26 and 27 as follows:
“26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made
by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in
terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife
with true love and affection to the children and her husband and
managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the
clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout
the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend
the employer’s work for particular hours. She takes care of all
the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of
food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and
provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A
housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as
cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house
clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother
who renders selfless service to her husband and children.
27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services
rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and
children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to
the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the
services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term
“services” is required to be given a broad meaning and must be
construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and
attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to
her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation
in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased.
The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on
the ground that some close relation
like a grandmother may
volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the
deceased was giving earlier.”
11. The notional income of the first deceased is therefore held to
be Rs.5000/- per month at the time of death. The compensation on that
basis with a deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards personal expenses
with a multiplier of 17 is assessed at Rs.7,65,000/-. If the deceased had
survived, in view of observations in Lata Wadhwa (supra), her skills as
a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care
of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been
enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants shall
be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of
consortium and future expenses already granted. We therefore assess
the total compensation payable to the appellants in the first appeal at
Rs.11,96,000/-.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
12. The second deceased was a school going child aged about 12
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 is therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation
of the life of the child is 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 is 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 can 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. (See R.K. Malik vs. Kiran
Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1).
13. The income of the minor girl child is incapable of precise
fixation. We find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income
of the second deceased. In R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC
1, considering grant of future prospects for the deceased child aged
about 10 years it was observed as follows:
“32. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant claimants that both the Tribunal as
well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of the
appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It
has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has
been ignored by the courts below.
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
33. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such
submission that the courts below have overlooked that aspect of
the matter while granting compensation. It is well-settled legal
principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary
losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future
prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the courts to
consider the said aspect while awarding compensation…”
14. 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.”
15. The deduction on account of contributory negligence has
already been held by us 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 does not
persuade us to enhance the same any further from Rs.2,95,000/- by
granting any further compensation under the separate head of “future
prospects”. It may only be noticed that R.K. Malik (supra) does not
consider Satender (supra) on the grant of future prospects as far as
children are concerned.
16. Kajal (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. The victim
of the accident was a nine month old child, whose disability certificate
reflected that she would grow up to be an adult lying on the bed with all
the physical and biological attributes of a woman on attaining adulthood,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
but her mind would remain of a nine month old child because of the
accident. The case is completely distinguishable on its own facts and did
not arise out of a death claim, leading to award of compensation towards
expenses for frequent treatment, hospitalization, transportation, loss of
future earnings, attendant charges, pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss
of marriage prospects and future medical treatment etc.
17.  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 only.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS v. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]