New Delhi, Feb 6 (PTI) The law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in cases involving sudden rupture of familial bonds, the Supreme Court said on Friday while enhancing the compensation awarded to the kin of a man who died in a road accident.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said that when an individual dies as a result of a road accident and his distressed dependents apply for compensation, no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss.
“Compensation is nothing but a rough estimate, being a token attempt to ease the financial burden on the dependents. Take consortium, for example. It is impossible to put a price on the loss of a loved one’s companionship,” the bench said.
It said spousal, filial or parental compensation are all about acknowledging the emotional void but the payout can never be more than a rough approximation.
“It is like trying to measure the immeasurable,” the bench said.
Referring to one of the earlier verdicts, the bench noted the apex court had recognised “loss of love and affection” as a distinct head of compensation, reflecting the non-pecuniary deprivation suffered by family members upon the untimely death of a loved one.
It further noted that a Constitution bench in another matter had expressly disapproved this approach.
“Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution bench decision must prevail over a judgment of a bench of lesser strength. Accordingly, this court is constrained to follow the law declared therein,” the bench said.
The top court observed that it is difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion.
“If the law is capable of recognising anticipated economic progression as a valid loss, it is not too clear why emotional deprivation manifested in loss of love and affection must be viewed as an impermissible head, especially when Chapter XII of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents,” it said.
The bench noted that the concern expressed in the Constitution bench verdict was primarily one of consistency and avoidance of unguided discretion.
It said, however, consistency, though desirable, cannot be elevated to a point where it eclipses the core objective of awarding “just compensation”.
“The law must remain responsive to lived human realities, especially in cases involving the sudden rupture of familial bonds,” the bench said.
Dealing with the case, in which a 37-year-old man had died in a road accident in June 2011, the bench noted that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, had awarded a compensation of Rs 9.37 lakh to the family members of the deceased.
Later, the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 10.51 lakh.
The family members of the deceased thereafter approached the apex court seeking further enhancement of the compensation.
While dealing with the appeal, the top court enhanced the compensation to Rs 20.80 lakh. PTI ABA ABA KSS KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.