SHIV KUMAR & ORS versus GAINDA LAL & ORS.
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1042, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
SHIV KUMAR & ORS.
v.
GAINDA LAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7629 of 2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Fatal accident – Compensation –
Enhancement of – Death of housewife aged 25 years in a vehicular
accident – Award of compensation of Rs. 19,12,200/- with interest
under different heads by the tribunal, enhanced to Rs.29,34,000/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent by the High Court – On
appeal, held: Deceased was a housewife aged 25 years and was
taking tuition, the High Court ought to have considered her income
at least Rs 7,500/- – High Court did not consider the future aspect
and while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is
to be added towards future prospects – Thus, claimants entitled to
Rs 1 lakh instead of Rs. 50,000 for loss of foetus, Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection – Claimant
entitled to compensation at Rs.32,82,000/- with interest at the rate
of 7.5 % per annum – Order passed by the High Court modified.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7629
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 07.03.2019 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 854 of 2014.
Vikas Kumar, Manish Paliwal, Ms. Megha Yadav, Ms. Himanshi
Kaushik, M/s Corporate Legal Partners, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.854 of 2014, the original
claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of
compensation.
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1042
1042

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
2. That the wife of the appellant no.1 died in a vehicular accident.
At the relevant time, the deceased was aged 25 years and was a
housewife. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded
Rs.19,12,200/- with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards the
compensation under different heads. The Learned Tribunal awarded
the loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/- considering the income of the
deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. As at the relevant time the deceased
was pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/- for foetus.
Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/- under different heads:
2.1 In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has enhanced the amount
of compensation at Rs.29,34,000/- under different heads:
Head of Claim 
MACT 
High Court 
Income 
1500/-pm 
6000/-pm notional 
Future Prospect 
- 
- 
Loss of Dependency 
(Annual Income after adjusting 
deductions and future prospects 
*Multiplier) 
Rs.3,24,000/- 
Rs.12,96,000/- 
SHIV KUMAR & ORS. v.  GAINDA LAL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferred
the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-original
claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed
a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income
of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only. It is submitted that even
the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than
Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awarding
the loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken into
consideration at all.
3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awarding
Rs.50,000/- towards foetus. It is submitted that the claimants shall be
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium or loss
of love and affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
contesting respondents – Insurance Company has submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the
deceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High Court
has committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency considering
the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. However,
has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the loss
of dependency considering future prospects.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution
of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing
the tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have
considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/- per month.
The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the
settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of
the income is required to be added towards future prospects.
5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to a
sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the High
Court for loss of foetus.
5.2 The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and
affection.
5.3 To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is required to be modified.
6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, present
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants - original
claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,82,000/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no
order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
SHIV KUMAR & ORS. v.  GAINDA LAL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]