COURT:
The Honourable Supreme Court of India.
CITATION:
Civil Appeal No. 1769 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
7th May 2021
JUDGES:
Honourable Chief Justice of India Shri. N.V. Ramana, Honourable Justice Surya Kant, Honourable Justice Aniruddha Bose.
PARTIES:
(Appellant) Rahul Sharma & Anr. (Respondents) National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
FACTS:
The case involves a challenge to the amended compensation portion of a prior Delhi High Court ruling. The appellant’s parents perished in an accident close to Punjab. The National Insurance Company had insurance on the car they were riding in. The initial petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi, which stated that the mother of the appellant was not eligible for future prospects in her income as she was self-employed. This judgment was challenged by a special appeal in the Supreme Court which utilized a previous judgment and stated that she will be liable for 40% of future prospects in her income even though she is self-employed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Section 249 of Indian Penal Code: According to this clause, anyone who attempts to change the appearance of an Indian coin by performing any operation on it in order to pass it off as a coin of a different description is subject to fines and up to seven years in prison.
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code: Any person who violates this provision will be penalised for culpable homicide that does not constitute murder by receiving a fine as well as a sentence of life in prison or a term that can last up to ten years. In this case, if there was a purpose to cause death or even just bodily harm that could result in death, it will result in either a fine, an extended prison sentence of up to 10 years, or both.
Section 427 of Indian Penal Code: According to this law, anyone who engages in mischief that results in a loss or damage that costs fifty rupees or more is subject to a maximum two-year prison sentence, a fine, or both.
Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act: In circumstances where the no-fault rule is in play, this section explains who is responsible for making restitution. It specifies that the owners of the vehicle should be jointly accountable for the compensation if an individual suffers any kind of permanent handicap or dies as a result of an accident involving the usage of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles.
Section 166 of Motors Vehicles Act: The person who has been injured, the owner of the property, the legal representatives of the person who passed away in the accident, or the person who has been authorised by the person who has been injured or by the legal representative of the deceased may all submit an application for compensation arising from an accident, the nature of which has already been described in Section 165.
ISSUES:
Whether the appeal to challenge the previous judgment of the Delhi High Court should be admitted?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
In this case, the appellant has challenged the previous judgment (of the year 2017) of the High Court of Delhi on this issue.
According to the case’s facts, a truck accident occurred in 2010 when the vehicle the appellant’s parents were driving in collided with it close to Punjab. It was tragic that they died from their wounds, though. Following that, a Punjab FIR was lodged under Sections 249, 304A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the National Insurance Company Ltd. insured their car.
Thus, the petition that the appellant had put forward before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, stated that, as per Section 140 and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation should be granted for the death of their parents. The appeal which we are discussing (the one challenging the previous judgment) is regarding the death of the mother of the appellant, who was of 37 years of age and was a self-employed individual.
The panel then determined that the compensation should be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 41,55,235. Her annual income, which was roughly Rs. 2,55,349, was decoded using an income tax report. The court also cited the decision in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, where around 1/3 of her income was taken off to cover living and personal expenses, and roughly 50% of the addition was made for those who were dependant on the deceased. And the non-monetary compensation was calculated to be around Rs. 3,25,000. Since, it was the NIC who was the insurer, they were held liable to pay Rs. 41,55,235 along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date when the petition for claim had been filed.
In response, the insurance company appealed the decision before the Delhi High Court, which resulted in the dismissal of the appellants’ appeal. The High Court determined that the monetary compensation was roughly Rs. 19,16,000 and that the non-monetary damages were roughly Rs. 2,50,000. Additionally, they had taken out roughly 50% of the income for living and personal expenses. They claimed that because the deceased was self-employed, she was ineligible for any potential future employment.
The modified compensation part of this judgement has been challenged by the appellants in the Special Leave which is presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The court cited the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi to rule that a 40% increase in income shall be included to the deceased’s income even if they were self-employed and under the age of 40. Since the current situation satisfies these criteria, the deceased’s income should be increased by 40% while the remaining conditions can be left in place, per the Hugh Court of Delhi’s ruling.
The court determined that the loss of dependent will be Rs. 35,74,890 after making all the necessary computations. The total sum awarded to the appellant as compensation was decided to be Rs. 38,24,890 plus 9% yearly interest from the day the case was filed till it was realised.
CONCLUSION:
It has never been easy to lose a loved one, and it never will be. As a result of the pandemic, we are well aware of how difficult it has become to obtain insurance from insurance companies. Additionally, the numerous formalities that plague our minds during such a traumatic time are unnecessary burdensome.
When it comes to the case at hand, the appellant would have found losing both parents to be a very trying experience. Had the High Court been a little more cautious about previous decisions regarding “self-employment” for an individual’s future prospects of income, the contention to challenge the modified compensation part would not have entered the picture. Because it is thoughtful and fair, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision can be seen as the ideal response to this problem. It does consider all pertinent circumstances and seeks to provide the appellants with justice.
written by RISHITA DASGUPTA (2ND SEMESTER), ADAMAS UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA
0 Comments