LexStreak
Read free →
Motor Accidents
Supreme Court of India

Must future prospects be granted to claimants in a motor accident claim, following Pranay Sethi?

Published · Judgment delivered
NARAYAN & ORS v. MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
2022 INSC 999 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6855 OF 2022 · 22 September 2022
Coram: Justice Hemant Gupta · Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Full text of the Supreme Court of India's judgmentChecked against the originalFree to read
🔖 Save this judgment📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Headnotes

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Future prospects — Rate of interest —

Future prospects — National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi — 40% — Tribunal and High Court —

Held: The Tribunal and the High Court granted no future prospects to the claimants, and in terms of the Pranay Sethi judgement, future prospects at the rate of 40% are now granted to the claimants. (¶4)

Rate of interest — 7.5% — Total compensation — Appeal allowed —

Held further: The rate of interest should have been fixed at 7.5% and stands modified, so the total payable to the appellants is Rs 37,80,000/- at 7.5% interest, and the appeal is allowed. (¶3, 4)

Points of Law
Ratio

Must future prospects be granted to claimants in a motor accident claim, following Pranay Sethi?

Yes. Future prospects were not granted by the Tribunal and the High Court; in terms of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi the claimants get future prospects at the rate of 40%, so the total is Rs 37,80,000/- at 7.5% interest. [4]

Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.

Key passages from the judgment
Paragraph 1Jump →

“This appeal is of the claimants, which arises out of the Impugned Judgment dated 05.04.2017 by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 28.06.2014.”

Paragraph 2Jump →

“The accident occurred on 30.03.2010 when the deceased Kiran was riding on a two-wheeler from Sholapur to Pandharpur, Maharashtra. During the journey an accident occurred when a Heavy Goods Vehicle crashed into the two-wheeler and caused fatal injuries to Kiran, who died on the spot. The claim petition was filed on his behalf by his parents and younger brother. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the Heavy Goods Vehicle. The vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 insurance company and the liability was fixed on the insurance company by the Tribunal. The award was made as per the following table : - Head Details/Amount Occupation T.V. News Reporter Income Rs. 10,000/- Age 25 Years Multiplier 15 Deduction on account of 50% (1/2) personal expenses Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rate of Interest awarded 6% TOTAL AMOUNT Rs. 10,05,000/-”

Paragraph 3Jump →

“The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court, which after considering the submissions of the insurance company awarded them increased compensation on the opinion that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.15,000/- and the multiplier should have been eighteen instead of fifteen. The High Court further increased the compensation granted under the head of loss of consortium to Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the High Court awarded the amount of Rs.17,70,000/- with the amount to be given at the 6% interest. Though, we find that the rate of interest awarded should have been fixed at 7.5% and hence the rate of interest stands modified.”

Paragraph 4Jump →

“However, we think that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not granting future prospects to the claimants in terms of the judgement of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.[^1] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the future prospects at the rate of 40% is granted to the claimants. The total compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs 37,80,000/- at 7.5% interest.”

Headnote & Points of Law

You've used your free headnotes this month

The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Cases referred
1.National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680followed · ¶4
Full judgment
1.

This appeal is of the claimants, which arises out of the Impugned Judgment dated 05.04.2017 by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 28.06.2014.

2.

The accident occurred on 30.03.2010 when the deceased Kiran was riding on a two-wheeler from Sholapur to Pandharpur, Maharashtra. During the journey an accident occurred when a Heavy Goods Vehicle crashed into the two-wheeler and caused fatal injuries to Kiran, who died on the spot. The claim petition was filed on his behalf by his parents and younger brother. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the Heavy Goods Vehicle. The vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 insurance company and the liability was fixed on the insurance company by the Tribunal. The award was made as per the following table : - Head Details/Amount Occupation T.V. News Reporter Income Rs. 10,000/- Age 25 Years Multiplier 15 Deduction on account of 50% (1/2) personal expenses Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rate of Interest awarded 6% TOTAL AMOUNT Rs. 10,05,000/-

AWARDED

3.

The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court, which after considering the submissions of the insurance company awarded them increased compensation on the opinion that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.15,000/- and the multiplier should have been eighteen instead of fifteen. The High Court further increased the compensation granted under the head of loss of consortium to Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the High Court awarded the amount of Rs.17,70,000/- with the amount to be given at the 6% interest. Though, we find that the rate of interest awarded should have been fixed at 7.5% and hence the rate of interest stands modified.

4.

However, we think that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not granting future prospects to the claimants in terms of the judgement of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the future prospects at the rate of 40% is granted to the claimants. The total compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs 37,80,000/- at 7.5% interest. ……..............................J. [HEMANT GUPTA] .….............................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] New Delhi, September 22, 2022.

Footnotes
  1. 1.

    (2017) 16 SCC 680 ↩

What the Court decided this week

Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?

CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court

Are judgments applying the clean slate theory under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to dues before CIRP a precedent on tax dues arising during CIRP?

WP.22505/2024 · Madras High Court

Are repeated unsubstantiated complaints and reckless allegations against a spouse and his family mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act?

CMA(MD).1160/2023 · Madras High Court

The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.

A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.

Start reading free

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

🔖Save judgments into folders you actually use
✍️Highlights and notes that follow you to every device
📚A daily feed curated to your practice areas
🔥A reading streak, and your place on the Bar leaderboard
Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Source: Supreme Court of India. Reproduced for open access to public legal records, as issued — we add no masking of our own.
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy