New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed “uneasiness” over its own Constitution bench ruling delivered in 2017 that said families cannot be compensated for “loss of love and affection” in motor accident cases.
“Compensation is nothing but a rough estimate, being a token attempt to ease the financial burden on the dependents,” a two-judge bench of the apex court said last week, adding that putting a price on the loss of a loved one’s companionship would be akin to measuring the immeasurable.
The two-judge bench was hearing a 2011 motor accident case where a 32-year-old driver lost his life after being hit by a speeding lorry. The Supreme Court finally granted additional compensation, which would include loss caused due to the “loss of love and affection”, to his widow and two minor children.
In total, the court ordered that the man’s family be paid Rs 20.80 lakh, out of which Rs 1.70 lakh was payable as “consortium” separately to his wife, children and remaining family members.
The family had been pursuing the matter legally for the past 15 years. As a consequence, the court also said that interest should be paid on the total compensation awarded to them at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
In the current case, the insurance company, arguing against a “loss of love and affection” compensation, cited a 2017 Constitution bench order in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi case. The bench had then held that compensation can be confined only to three subheads—funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium. It expressly disapproved of damages under a separate head of “loss of love and affection”, just four years after a Supreme Court ruling recognised this as a distinct head of compensation.
In the latest order, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed its doubts about the five-judge Constitution Bench ruling.
“There can be no quarrel with the binding nature of Pranay Sethi (supra). Judicial discipline demands that a Constitution bench decision must prevail over a judgment of a bench of lesser strength,” the court said, but added that it’s difficult to ignore the conceptual tension that underlies this exclusion.
The latest order
In its 6 February ruling, the court was acting on the plea of the victim’s widow and his two minor children, who had first approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chennai, seeking Rs 20 lakh as compensation due to the loss of dependency.
They also told the court that as a driver, the victim earned Rs 10,000 every month and was the sole bread-winner.
In 2012, however, the tribunal, in the absence of documentary evidence, assumed his monthly income as Rs 6,000 and directed payment of Rs 9 lakh as compensation.
Challenging this, the heirs moved the Madras High Court, which only gave them partial relief, by taking his income as Rs 7,000 a month, and ordering a total of Rs 10.51 lakh payable to his heirs.
The family then moved the Supreme Court contending that the Madras HC had failed to take into account their loss of future prospects, an essential facet of “just” or fair compensation in such cases.
Usually, courts take into account the loss of “future prospects” while determining compensation payable in MV accident cases. In this case too, the court noted that the principle was evolved to respond to the socioeconomic realities and the legitimate expectations of the dependents.
“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,” the court noted, while making it clear that an addition of 40 percent of the established income towards future prospects is compulsory, especially when the victim is below 40 years of age.
Compensation due to loss of love & affection
Underlining that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial piece of legislation meant to help people in distress arising out of road accidents, the court said that if a law is capable of recognising “anticipated economic progression” as a valid loss, it should also view emotional deprivation due to loss of love and affection as valid when it comes to computing compensation in such accident cases.
Considering the income of the deceased, the needs of his dependents and the emotional toll of the loss, the best that can be ensured is that the compensation is fair and reasonable, the court said in its ruling, while pointing out that this figure should neither be “arbitrary” nor niggardly.
“This would be in accord with the foundational principle governing the determination of “just compensation,” the court said.
“If any amount on account of compensation as awarded by the MACT, since enhanced by the High Court, has been paid to the claimants, the insurer is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order,” the court ruled.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Haryana youth died in road accident just before joining new job. Why HC tripled compensation to kin