Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

Shiv Kumar & Ors. vs. Gainda Lal & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (21 Oct 2022)

While considering the loss of dependency, 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects

MANU/SC/1377/2022

Motor Vehicles

The original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

The Appellants ¬original claimants has vehemently submitted that, the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000¬ per month only. It is submitted that even the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than Rs.6,000¬ per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awarding the loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken into consideration at all.

At the relevant time, the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing the tuition work, present Court is of the opinion that, the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500¬ per month. The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects.

The claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000¬ as awarded by the High Court for loss of foetus. The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000¬ each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is modified and it is directed that the appellants original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,82,000¬ with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   ENHANCEMENT   ELIGIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved