New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently enhanced the compensation in a 22-year-old road-accident case while stating that the post-mortem report can be taken as a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased for computing compensation.
The apex court said that the Motor Vehicles Act was a beneficial and welfare legislation and it was the court's duty to award ‘just compensation’.
The court was hearing the plea by the family of the deceased woman Tarawati, who died in a road accident in Haryana on February 07, 2003. It was claimed that she was going on foot to the bus stand of village Sanjarwas Phogat, when a truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, crushed her.
A bench comprising justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, in the present case, the issue has to be seen in a narrow compass related to the monthly income and multiplier within the parameters of the formula fixed in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009), as also with regard to the loss of love and affection, loss of care and guidance to minor and deduction for personal expenses.
The bench, in its judgement delivered on March 19, said: “The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial and welfare legislation and it is our duty to award ‘just compensation’”.
The apex court increased the total compensation from Rs 5,96,761 to Rs 13,82,500 to be paid to the family of the deceased. The bench said the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to treat the age of the deceased, Tarawati as 60 years instead of 45 years as determined by the post-mortem report, was erroneous.
“Coming to the multiplier factor which is dependent on the age, there is sufficient indication that the deceased was aged about 45 years as per the post-mortem report which is a scientific assessment of the age of the deceased”, said the bench.
Appellants’ led by the deceased's daughter-in-law Sunita contended the age of the deceased was taken as 60 years purely on conjecture, presuming that as per societal norms, the wife would be two years younger than her husband. The appellants’ counsel said this flawed reasoning has been upheld by the high court in the impugned order, assuming the age was 42 years.
“It was argued that the aforesaid reasoning is incorrect since the age of claimant no.1 was recorded as 30 years in the claim petition and the post-mortem report dated 07.02.2003 clearly records the age of the deceased as being 45 years”, noted the apex court.
The bench said: “The purported discrepancy in the age with regard to that of the claimant and the deceased is erroneous for the reason that when the claim was filed, appellant no.1 was aged about 30 years”.
The bench added that a difference of 15 years between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law cannot be said to be totally devoid of reality given the contextual and prevalent societal norms in vogue at the time of marriage of the deceased which could have been at least 25 to 30 years prior to her death i.e., in or about the 1970s.
“Moreover, in the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the post-mortem report. Thus, we are inclined to grant her the benefit of multiplier of 14 taking her age as 45 years”, said the bench.
The bench decided to enhance the total compensation to be paid by the insurance company with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim till date of realisation, within two months.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in August 2015, awarded a compensation of Rs 4,31,680 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The high court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation only by Rs 1,65,081.
