2021 INSC 0252
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1769 O F  2021   
( ARISING   OUT   OF  SLP (C) N O . 719  OF  2018)
R AHUL  S HARMA  & A NR . …A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
N ATIONAL  I NSURANCE  C OMPANY                 …R ESPONDENT ( S )
L TD . &  ORS .  
J U D G M E N T   
N.V. R AMANA , CJI.,   
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellants   before   us   seek   to   impugn   the   judgment
dated 4 th
  September, 2017, passed by the Delhi High Court in
MAC. App. No. 740/2016.
3. The   brief   facts,   necessary   for   the   adjudication   of   this
appeal are as follows: on the intervening night of the 18 th
/19 th
May, 2010, the vehicle in which parents of the Appellants were
1 Non­Reportable

travelling   rammed   into   a   truck,   near   Phagwara,   Punjab.
Resultantly,   they   succumbed   to   the   injuries   sustained   in   the
accident.   The   car   was   plying   other   relatives   of   the   Appellants
and the deceased. Thereafter, F.I.R. no. 76/10, was registered
in   PS   Sadar   Phagwara,   Punjab   under   Sections   249,   304­A,
427   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   in   this   regard.   It   may   be
relevant   to   note   that   the   vehicle   was,   during   the   relevant
period,   insured   by   the   National   Insurance   Co.   Ltd.
(hereinafter, referred to as NIC), the Respondent No. 1 herein.
4. The   Appellants   instituted   a   claim   petition   before   the
Motor   Accidents   Claims   Tribunal   (hereinafter,   “the   MACT”),
under  Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1988,
for grant of compensation for the death of their parents, which
were registered as cases numbered, MACT No. 349/2010 (with
respect   to   Mrs.   Manisha   Sharma)   and   MACT   No.   350/2010
(with respect to Mr. Sunil Sharma), and were adjudicated  vide
a common award dated 7 th
 June, 2016.
5. The   present   appeal   pertains   to   the   claim   petition
preferred on the account of the death of the appellants mother.
2

The   appellants’   mother,   Mrs.   Manisha   Sharma,   was   aged
about 37 years and was a self­employed individual. 
6. The   Tribunal,   while   adjudicating   the   claim,   determined
the   compensation   to   be   Rs.   41,55,235.   The   Tribunal   relied
upon   the   Income   Tax   Return   of   the   deceased   and   concluded
that   her   annual   income   was   Rs.   2,55,349.   Based   on   the
dictum   of   this   Court   in   Sarla   Verma   v.   Delhi   Transport
Corporation ,   (2009)   6   SCC   121 ,  50%   addition   was   included
towards   future   prospects   and   the   multiplier   was   taken   to   be
15.   Since,   the   deceased   had   two   dependents,   1/3 rd
  of   the
deceased’s   income   was   deducted   on   account   of   personal   and
living   expenses.   The   non­pecuniary   compensation   was
calculated   at   Rs.   3,25,000.   The   NIC,   being   the   insurer   of   the
vehicle,   was   held   liable   to   pay   the   compensation   of   Rs.
41,55,235 with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition.
7. Aggrieved,   the   insurance   company   preferred   an   appeal
against   the   award   of   the   MACT   before   the   Delhi   High   Court,
which   disposed   of   the   appeal   vide   the   impugned   judgment
3

dated   4 th
  September,   2017.   The   High   Court,   in   its   common
judgement,   calculated   the   pecuniary   compensation   as   Rs.
19,16,000   and   the   non­pecuniary   damages  was  calculated   as
Rs.2,50,000,   for   a   total   compensation   of   Rs.   21,66,000/­,   in
MAC.   APP.   740/2016.   While   passing   the   aforesaid   impugned
order,   the   High   Court   deducted   50%   of   income   towards
personal   and   living   expenses.   The   High   Court   however,   held
the deceased ineligible for the grant of future prospects as she
was self­employed.  
8.   Aggrieved   by   the   impugned   judgement,   the   Appellants
have   preferred   the   present   appeal,   by   way   of   Special   Leave,
impugning   only   the   compensation   as   modified   in   MAC.   App.
No. 740/2016.
9. We   have   heard   the   counsel   for   the   Appellants   and   the
counsel for the NIC, Respondent No. 1. The Respondents No. 2
and   3   have   not   tendered   their   appearances,   despite   service.
The   insurance   company   has   also   placed   on   record   their
written submissions, which have been perused.
4

10. This   Court   in   a   Five   Judge   Bench   decision   in   National
Insurance   Co.   Ltd.   v.   Pranay   Sethi ,   (2017)   16   SCC   680 ,
clearly   held   that   in   case   the   deceased   is   self­employed   and
below   the   age   of   40,   40%   addition   would   be   made   to   their
income as future prospects. In the present case, the deceased
was self­employed and was 37 years old, therefore, warranting
the   addition   of   40%   towards   future   prospects.   Moreover,
Pranay   Sethi   ( supra ),   affirming   the   ratio   in   Sarla   Verma
( supra ),   held   that   the   deduction   towards   personal   and   living
expenses for a person such as the deceased who was married
with   two   dependents,   to   be   one­third   (1/3 rd
).   Since   the   High
Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   deducted   50%   the   same
merits interference by this Court. 
11. Therefore,   in   light   of   the   above,   the   compensation   as
awarded to the Appellants by the High Court is modified to the
extent   of   deduction   towards   personal   and   living   expenses
(determined to be one­third (1/3 rd
)) and 40% addition towards
future   prospects.   The   annual   income   of   the   deceased   (Mrs.
Manisha  Sharma)  was  Rs. 2,55,349.  After  deducting   personal
and   living   expenses   and   adding   future   prospects,   the   annual
5

income is determined at Rs. 2,38,326/­. The multiplier of 15 is
appropriate, considering the age of the deceased. Accordingly,
the   total   loss   of   dependency,   is   calculated   to   be
Rs.   35,74,890/­.   We   do   not   find   any   reason   to   interfere   with
any other heads as determined by the High Court.
12. Hence,   the   total   compensation   is   determined   to   be,
Rs.   38,24,890/­   payable   with   interest   of   9%   per   annum   from
the   date   of   filing   of   the   claim   petition   till   realisation,   set   off
against the part compensation already received, if any.
6

13. This Civil Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
..…..…….................CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
 …...…….................J.
(SURYA KANT)
       …..………............J.
       ( ANIRUDDHA BOSE )
NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2021
7