S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & Ors. v. M. DINAKAR & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeals are allowed in the above terms, without any order
Provisions considered
Judgment
Judgment
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. 288 [2022] 12 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS. v. M. DINAKAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-4689 of 2022) JULY 11, 2022 [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166, 168 – Compensation – Enhancement of – Accident occurred which resulted into death of wife of appellant – Claim was lodged by the appellant before the Tribunal – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 36,92,350/- and as at the time of accident the deceased was unemployed, the monthly income of deceased was calculated on basis of her husband’s income (following the judgment of Arun Kumar Agrawal and anothers) – However, the High Court considered the deceased’s salary in a job where she was engaged three years prior to the accident as the basis for quantifying the pecuniary loss to be awarded and reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.
32,82,090/- – On appeal, held: There is a long time gap between the time she was in employment and the occurrence of the accident thus her salary would be an unreliable guide for fixing her notional income – The Tribunal had rightly followed the course laid down in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal – Deduction in pecuniary loss by the High Court not correct – The deduction of 1/3rd of determined income of the deceased towards personal expenses is valid on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma – Loss of future prospect was not considered by the Tribunal and the High Court to arrive at the quantum of pecuniary loss – Further, loss of love and affection is comprehended in the loss of consortium, High Court not justified to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head – Considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation was set to Rs.
46,17,350/- – Appeals allowed. Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others. [(2010) 9 SCC 218 : [2010] 9 SCR 303 – relied on. 288 S. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS. v. M. DINAKAR & ANR. 289
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeals are allowed in the above terms, without any order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 168; Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 28 Feb 2011. The bench was DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.