In a case that has come up before a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, a rather important angle in deciding the future prospects of an employed or self-employed person involved in a fatal car accident is being debated. The case has come up from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, followed by a high court order, and the Supreme Court’s decision could serve as a template for future references and awards of compensation by insurance companies.

A self-employed man of 30 was driving along a road when a tyre of his car burst, making the car flip over the median and collide with an oncoming truck from the other side. As per law, the heavier vehicle bears the brunt of the law’s wrath, also because the truck was travelling at a high speed. These result in gross negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. However, the grouse of the claimant was that the driver of the truck was not examined.

The high court had reversed the judgment of the tribunal and apportioned the liability between the truck and the car at 75 percent and 25 percent of the total compensation determined. The total compensation determined was Rs 10,82,843.

Insurer National Insurance Company Limited has challenged this before the Supreme Court. While the basic case may seem small, it has been referred to a constitution bench to   decide   as   to “whether the principles of future prospects will apply to private employment”.

The judgement was passed in April 2017.

The arguments launched into were about what is the liability attributed to a victim employed in a private or government sector job and in the age-group 40-50. This is 50 percent. That liability is 15 percent for the 50-60 age-group.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan agreed to the case of Sarala Verma as reference, which the earlier 3-judge bench had agreed to as well.

Justice Sikri observed: “Retirement age is not categorised. They work after retirement. There are other prospects which he or she can pursue. If there is no evidence approved, Sarala Verma is applicable, but if there is evidence then Sarala Verma will not applicable.

Justice Chandrachud said: “Life expectancy has increased today. We cannot judge any person’s life by his age. What about the work he would have done if he were alive? That is the bigger question.”

The question before the bench was: “How do you fix the threshold? You need to show evidence. Future prospects is totally uncertain.

The counsel mentioned a case where a man was a pundit, earning a certain amount. The bench had awarded 50 percent first and then another 50 percent was added because he was a bachelor.

Justice Bhushan said: “The purpose of this bench is to apply the correct law or lay down an implemented law. Don’t tie this with the Sarala Verma or any other principle.”

The bench argued about whether even at 50 years of age today, the man will have a future prospect and how can this possibility of a future prospect be disregarded? And especially about people who are self employed – as in the current case – this, the bench observed, “we cannot ignore. We have to calculate the income.”

Hearings have been completed and the judgment will be pronounced on October 13.

—India Legal Bureau