1. Motor accident death — Claim for compensation — Evidence of potential foreign employment for income assessment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 883
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : K.Venkataswami
Malliga
Versus
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation
Case No. : 10917 of 1996
Date of Decision : 8/27/98
Compensation cannot be reduced based on a misinterpretation of evidence regarding potential income, especially when subsequent documents clarify the timeline of a genuine foreign employment offer.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Evidence of foreign assignment to determine income - Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,50,000 after considering foreign assignment documents, though it found the potential income-based amount excessive - High Court reduced the award to Rs. 2,00,000, doubting the assignment because the deceased did not join immediately after the first offer letter - Supreme Court observed that a subsequent letter clarified the visa process and expected joining date - Where the genuineness of documents is not doubted, a wrong appreciation of the timeline in such documents cannot be a ground to reduce compensation - Tribunal's fair assessment to be restored. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant, employed as an Assistant Engineer, died in an accident. The claimants sought compensation, providing evidence of a confirmed foreign assignment with a high monthly salary. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,50,000. The High Court reduced this to Rs. 2,00,000, questioning why the deceased had not joined the foreign assignment immediately after the first offer letter.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court failed to note the contents of a subsequent letter which indicated that the visa would be ready in four to six weeks and the employer expected the deceased to join in June or July. Thus, the High Court's reasoning for reducing the award was unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the High Court's reduction of the compensation award based on a misinterpretation of the evidence regarding the deceased's foreign employment assignment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: When documents proving a potential increase in income are found to be genuine and bona fide, and subsequent evidence clarifies the timeline of such employment, the appellate court cannot reduce compensation based on a wrong appreciation of those documents.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the potential income from a foreign assignment was sufficiently established to justify the compensation amount. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The High Court failed to appreciate evidence showing the visa process was underway, making the conclusion that the deceased failed to take immediate steps unsustainable. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Compensation assessment must be based on a correct appreciation of evidence regarding potential income and the genuineness of employment offers. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — Compensation award restored to the amount granted by the Tribunal. (Para 8 )
6. How should evidence of potential foreign employment be treated in calculating compensation for death?
Evidence of a genuine foreign assignment, including correspondence regarding visa processing and expected joining dates, should be considered in assessing potential income, and conclusions regarding a failure to act must be based on a correct appreciation of such documents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. When is a reduction in compensation by a higher court considered unsustainable?
A reduction is unsustainable if it is based on a wrong appreciation or misunderstanding of the evidence presented, particularly when the lower tribunal had already found the relevant documents to be genuine and bona fide. (Para 7 )
K.Venkataswami, J. , A.P.Misra, J.
(1) THIS court, while granting leave by order dated 23.8.1996, limited the scope regarding question of restoring the amount of compensation granted initially by the Tribunal.
(2) THE husband of the appellant No. 1 and the father of the appellant No. 2 died in an accident which took place on 15.6.87. He was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Boards Research Office of the General Sanitary Engineering Department, Tirunelveli. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation for the death of their breadwinner. In support of their claim, apart from furnishing the salary certificate and other documents to show future increase in the salary and other things, the appellants filed two Exhs. P-7 and P-8 to show that the deceased Had a confirmed foreign assignment which would fetch not less than Rs. 36,000 a month at that time. These two documents were noticed both by the trial court and by the High Court. The trial court, after noticing the foreign assignment the deceased had got from the United States, was of the view that if the compensation has to be worked out on that basis, it would come to Rs. 36,00,000 and that amount being excessive, it may not be proper for it to grant such a huge amount. Otherwise, the Tribunal has found those two documents as genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal, after assessing the pros and cons, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,50,000 towards compensation with interest at 12 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
(3) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Tribunal, both the respondent and the appellants preferred an appeal and cross-objections before the High Court. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while considering the appeal and cross-objections, found that the appellants had not established that, pursuant to the offer of the foreign assignment, any firm order was received. This is what the High Court has observed, which is as follows: "With regard to the foreign assignment, as spoken of by PW 1 on the basis of Exhs. P-7 and P-8, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal. Exh. P-7 is dated 14.1.1987. It is highly doubtful that after receipt of an order for employment in a concern at U.S.A., why the deceased had not taken any immediate steps for joining the foreign assignment. The only reason given by PW 1 was that in order to secure proper education for her daughter, her husband had to postpone his trip. Nothing prevented the wife to get a further letter or confirmation even after the death of her husband with regard to the foreign assignment from the said East- West Designs, Florida, U.S.A., in order to strengthen her case. In the absence of clinching evidence to prove that there was an order for foreign employment, we are unable to accept the oral evidence of PW 1 in this regard. Hence, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the cross-objector for enhancement of the compensation."
(4) ASSAILING the above conclusion, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to our notice the contents of Exh. P-8. The High Court referred to Exh. P-8 but failed to note the contents and the effect of it. Exh. P-8 dated 8.4.1997 was to the effect that the foreign employer had informed the deceased that his visa will be made ready within four to six weeks and they expected the deceased to join the firm around June or July, 1987. As noticed earlier, the genuineness of the document was not doubted either by the Tribunal or by the High Court.
(5) EXH. P-8 reads as follows:
"EAST-WEST DESIGNS 7011 Grand National Dr. Suite 102, Orlando, Florida 32819. 305/352-938 3/04/1987 Mr. Rangarajan Sukumar C/o 41-D High Road, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu 627001, India Dear Rangarajan, I received your letter and I am really happy to inform you that your visa papers should be in Madras within 4 to 6 weeks. Hopefull
