The quantum of death after two decades

1987: The deceased was a 25 year old labourer, the only breadwinner supporting his wife, two minor daughters and his aged parents. He was crushed to death by a speeding truck while he was heading to work as a daily wager. The shattered family, now rendered without a source of income, filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act against the truck driver, his employer and the Insurance Company in question.

1989: The occurrence of the accident, the negligence and fault of the truck driver and the consequential liability of the insurance company was never in doubt before the MACT. However, after finding the respondents liable, the Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased to be Rs 600 per month, ¼ of which was deducted as personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 14 and awarded compensation at Rs 75,000.  Devastated at the trivial amount, the claimants chose to file an FAO in front of the High Court. The matter was admitted by the High Court, to be heard on its regular turn.

2011: The regular turn came, after 22 years. Half-hearted attempts to compromise the matter before had been thwarted by counsels on either side. When the matter finally reached well after lunch, it was the 17^th regular matter, the Judge had about 20 more similar matters listed before him. A junior appeared for the claimants, instructed to seek more time to argue the matter. 22 years was however found to be enough time, this request was rejected by the Court. Vague and unprepared arguments followed, that lasted for about two minutes. On the basis of these arguments, the multiplier was increased from 14 to 17, personal expenses were reduced to 1/5^th of the income, and the award was enhanced to about Rs 95,000, with an interest of 6%. The entire process, took about 5 minutes. After 22 years, in 5 minutes the quantum of compensation calculated was enhanced by Rs 20,000. Next case. Similar facts. Similar arguments. Similar judgment. Next case…

These facts reverberate the story of tens of thousands of similar MACT cases languishing in the Higher Judiciary solely on the question of enhancement of compensation, and to me represent a staggering collective failure on part of everyone involved in the Legal System. Justice delayed being justice denied could never have a truer ring to it, to my mind there is absolutely no justification for stalling such simple cases, where immediate relief is really the only way the Courts can provide some solace to the family of the deceased.

The reason why a case of such nature would remain pending in the High Court for decades always eludes me. The law on the question of quantum of compensation in death cases has been settled by the Supreme Court conclusively. The accepted measure of quantifying damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death .The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants’ works as a rough formula which has to take into account many imponderables. The imponderables to be taken into account include factors like the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the approximate amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, assessing the contribution made by him to his dependants, chances of better employment or increased earnings, etc. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier.

Considering the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation by the MACTs, the Supreme Court once again conclusively settled the question of determining quantum in the seminal decision of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 (found here). The formula to be followed for determining compensation to be paid is pithily summarized by the Supreme Court as follows:

“Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.”

Sarla Verma therefore further clarifies the well entrenched formula for determining the correct compensation, a simple task which does not involve complicated questions of fact or law. Yet cases which could be easily and conclusively decided in a matter of minutes are pending disposal for decades. One main reason for such unpardonable delays is the attitude of the Respondent Insurance Companies, which in most cases, approach the table without any intention of compromising the matter. This is more so in cases where the family of the deceased is financially crippled already and not connected enough to approach the right people for getting their claim settled. Another reason is that lawyers are completely desensitized to the plight of their clients, since the stakes involved are not that high, seeking adjournments is taken to be a matter of right.  Further, the sheer number of such cases being filed in the Higher Judiciary is so high that disposal never catches up with filing. Even so, admitting such cases for years leads to completely defeating the rights of the victims as the enormous time delays nullify whatever benefits enhanced compensation may have.

Across jurisdictions MACT cases are settled by way of compromise, where a fair offer is made by the Insurance Company which then has to be acted upon by the claimants. This quick and efficient method fails in India because Insurance Companies refuse to settle matters, knowing that no repercussions follow for delaying and denying justice so blatantly. In such cases, where claims are found to be genuine burdening Insurance Companies with exemplary costs is one method that must be adopted to ensure justice.  This is one suggestion, it is essential that  a solution is found for a predominant chunk of the pendency of cases in the Higher Judiciary could be tackled if only we evolve an efficient way of dealing with these cases.