Kirti & Anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2021

 Case Analysis By: Saumya Singh, a 3rd year law student (BBA LLB Hons.) of GGSIPU Delhi and research intern at Legal Wind.

Kirti & Anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2021

Basic Details of the Case:

Case Name- Kirti & Anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [i]

Parties- 1. Kirit and Anr. (Petitioner)

              2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent)

Court- Supreme Court of India

Diary Number- 16762 of 2018

Appeal Number- Civil Appeal Number- 000019-000020 of 2021 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18728-18729 of 2018)

Bench- Full Bench of the Apex Court (Three Judges)-

              1. Justice N.V. Ramana,

              2. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and

              3. Justice Surya Kant 

Brief- Judgment of this case states that the value of homemaker's work is no less than the value of husband's work at the office. And in this case the apex court granted future prospects even in the cases of national income and court also settled the controversy as to whether the concession made by any councel would be binding on the litigating party or not?

Judgment Date- 5 January, 2021.

Introduction:

In this case the Supreme Court while calculating the National income in the motor vehicle accident, was of opinion that the non earning members including homemakers and the deceased members should be taken into consideration for just and fair compensation. The court partly allowed the appeal from the award of the High Court of Delhi where the High Court had disallowed future prospects awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini for a deceased victim who was a home-maker and additionally increased the awarded compensation amount. 

Brief Facts of the Case:

These Civil Appeals have been filed by three surviving dependents (i.e. two minor daughters and father) of the two deceased in which they challenged the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 17/07/2017.

On 24/12/2016 the High Court reduced the amount given for the motor accident compensation which was awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini as per section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and it was reduced from Rs. 40.71 lakhs to Rs. 22 lakhs.

The accident occurred on 12/04/2014 in which the deceased couple Vinod and Poonam were hit by a Santro Car (Registration Number: DL 7CA 1053) while commuting on a motor-cycle in the early morning at around 07:00am. The couple passed away on that day itself from haemorrhagic shock and cranio cerebral damage caused due to the accident's blunt force trauma.

An FIR was filed against the car driver for rash and negligent driving under sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, the two toddler daughters and septuagenarian parents of the deceased filed a claim petition according to the section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

The tribunal took note of the chargesheet filed against the driver of the car and relying on the strong testimony of the independent witness(Constable Vishnu Dutt), the Tribunal held that the car driver was driving rashly which made the insurance company liable for the payment of the compensation. The  tribunal also took various factors into account and awarded a total sum of Rs. 40.71 lakhs to the deceased's claimant.

However the respondent-insurer (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) was not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal and challenged the said award before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court accepted most of the contentions made by the respondent-insurer. And allowed the appeal in part, and deleted a part of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards capitalisation of the future prospects.

Thus, the claimants of the deceased, agreeved by the order of the High Court filed an appeal before the apex court for redressal.

Issues Raised before the Supreme Court:

Issues raised in this case are as follows-

1. Deduction for personal expenses- To calculate the share of deduction of personal expenses, should the subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother be taken into consideration?

2. Assesment of the monthly income- To calculate the monthly income of the deceased,

should the minimum wage of the lowest-tier be used?

3. Addition of future prospects- Where there is no proof of any fixed salary or employment, should the payment for future prospects be made to the deceased?

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- States for the application for compensation.

2. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- States the award of the claims tribunal. [ii]

3. Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- States rash driving or riding on a public way and it's punishment.

4. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- States punishment for culpable homocide not amounting to murder. [iii]

Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court:

The court made the following observations and decided on each issues that arose before the court-

1. Deduction of personal expenses-

The apex court observed that, at the time of death due to accident there were four dependents of the deceased, not three. The four dependents of the deceased were- two parents and two childern having the age of three and four years respectively. The deceased's defendant mother died subsequent to the occurrence of the motor accident.

The court held that deceased dependent mother's death subsequent to the occurrence of the motor accident cannot be a reason for reduction in motor accident compensation amount. Thus while determining the compensation amount, claims and liabilities have to be considered at the time of the accident itself and any changes after that would not ordinarily affect the proceedings. Similarly it was legally settled by the apex court that councel (advocates) cannot enter into any arrangements which is against the law and also either sides advocate would not legally bind the parties in this regard.

Furthermore the court observed that any compensation awarded by a court should be just, reasonable and must be guided by the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience. 

The court also observed that the family of the deceased consist of not only septuagenarian parents but also there were two toddler girls of three and four years of the age respectively and both the children requires a good amount of care and expenses till the time they become self dependent.

Additionally, the rash and negligent driving of the driver also extinguished the life of the third child of the family who was a foetus in the womb of Poonam as she was pregnant at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses of the two deceased (i.e. Poonam and her husband, Vinod) ought to be 1/4th only and not 1/3rd as determined by the Tribunal and High Court.

2. Assesment of the monthly income-

The court on this issue observed that determining the compensation amount at the rate of minimum wage in the absence of proof of deceased's income is not justified.

Further court also stated that the existing standard of living of the family of deceased and his (deceased's) educational qualifications have to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation as per the motor accident compensation law.

The minimum wage applicable to a skilled-workers must be used to calculate their monthly income. The apex court held that the minimum wage applicable to the skilled workers in the state of Haryana during the time of motor accident (i.e. during April 2015) have to be applied here in this case also.

3. Addition of future prospects-

While referring to this issue, the apex court relied on the judgment passed by the constitutional bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi (Supra) [iv] where the court held that in case the deceased was on a fixed salary or self employed and he was below forty years of age then the future prospects must be paid to the tune of forty percent of the established income.

The court also discussed the observations of this court in the case of Hem Raj versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. wherein the court was of view that there cannot be any distinction between the cases where there is positive evidence of income and the cases where the minimum income is calculated on basis of guesswork in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore the court granted future prospects calculated to tune of forty percent of deceased's established income as Vinod and Poonam (29 and 26 years of age respectively) both were below the age of 40 years.

The court also rejected the contention of respondent insurer (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) that the future prospects cannot be allowed in the cases of National Income.

The court allowed the appeals in-part. Also the court increased the motor accident compensation of rupees twenty-two lakhs awarded by the High Court to the claimant-appellants. The court increased it by Rs. 11.20 lakhs making it a new sum of Rs. 33.20 lakhs as motor accident compensation.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Justice N.V. Ramana was of the same opinion with the above findings and reasonings of the court in this case. In addition, he penned down his opinions with respect to the question on the determination of national income of the housewife and whether the future prospects should apply to the same or not.

His observations are as follows-

a) While determining the national income of a victim, there are two different categories of situations on the basis of which the court usually decides, wherein-

The first category consists of the cases wherein the victims who are employed at the time of accident but the surviving dependents (claimants) of that victim are not able to prove her actual income before the court- In such a case, the court guesses the victim's income on the basis of evidence on record. For example - On the basis of the living standards of victim, educational qualifications, her family and other considerations.

The second category relates of the cases wherein the court has to decide the income of non earning victim such as a  student, a child or a homemaker.

b) The future prospects cannot be refused solely on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased and the future prospects is also payable in the cases of national income. And the same principle must be applied in case of non-earing victims particularly with the respect to housewife.

c) The granting of compensation to housewife on the pecuniary basis is a settled opinion of law.

d) The granting of the future prospects on calculated national income, is a component of just compensation.

e) Fixing national income of a housewife will serve as a extreme important function and it will serve in the recognition of the labour, services and sacrifices of the housewife. Additionally it will promote the constitutional vision of ensuring dignity of life to all the individuals and social equality.

f) There can be no fixed approach to calculate the national income of a housewife as there are various methods through which it can be determined. But it is the responsibility of the court to ensure that the method used in calculating the national income of a housewife is just as per the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

Conclusion:

The apex court in this case stated that the estimation of homemaker's work is nearly as equivalent as others who are office specialist. This judgment will provide guidance to the tribunals and courts while assessing compensation for the victims of motor accident especially homemakers. This judgment contribute towards negating the notion that homemakers cannot share the same position of that of a bread-winner and do not contribute any economic value to the society. Furthermore, it will also aid and reinstate the principles of social equality and dignity of all as provided in the Constitution of India.

References:

[i] Kirti & Anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

[ii] Section 166, 168 Motor Vehicles Act.

[iii] Section 279, 304 IPC.

[iv]  National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi (Supra)