2009(1) Supreme 266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Mohd. Jameel & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.18001 of 2006)
Decided on : 06-01-2009
(1994) 2 SCC 176 – Relied upon.
(b)Motor Vehicles At, 1988 – Section 166 – The second schedule to the Act may serve as a guide but cannot be used as an invariable ready reckoner – Principles for arriving at a just compensation discussed. (Paras 11 to 13)
(2005) 8 SCC 473; AIR 1962 SC 1 – Relied upon.
(c)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Earnings of the deceased – Onus lies on the claimants to prove it. (Para 14)
(2008) 2 SCC 763 – Distinguished.
Facts of the case :
1. The appellants are the unfortunate parents and the three sisters of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, which was involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company with which the lorry was insured.
2.On 3rd June, 1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased aged about 20 years, was riding on a luna moped when the lorry dashed against it and ran over the deceased, killing him on the spot.
3.It was claimed that the deceased was engaged in his own business under the name and style of Bharath Packing Cases Industry, and was also dealing in cut size timber.
4. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation wherein it was pleaded that the deceased had lucrative business and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. A claim for compensation of Rs.68,30,000/- was made.
5.The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Tribunal quantified the total compensation as Rs.6,08,000/-. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum was also awarded.
6.The High Court calculated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. The High Court did not interfere with the deduction towards the personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as also the other amounts awarded to the claimants. The High Court, thus, chose to reduce the compensation amount awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal from Rs.6,08,000/- to Rs.3,56,000/- on the ground that the monthly earnings of the deceased had been taken on the higher side at Rs.7,000/-.
Finding of the Court :
The principles applied by High Court do not warrant interference.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, holding that the appellants herein are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual deposit of the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), as against the compensation of Rs.6,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide order dated 19th April, 2002.
3.The appellants are the unfortunate parents and the three sisters of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, which was involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company with which the lorry was insured. According to the appellants, on 3rd June, 1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased aged about 20 years, was riding on a luna moped when the lorry dashed against it and ran over the deceased, killing him on the spot. It was claimed that the deceased was engaged in his own business under the name and style of Bharath Packing Cases Industry, and was also dealing in cut size timber.
4.The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act for award of compensation on account of the death of the deceased. In the petition, it was pleaded that the deceased had lucrative business and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. A claim for compensation of Rs.68,30,000/- was made. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, in particular the Income Tax Return filed by the deceased for the assessment year 1998-1999, wherein the total income from business was declared at Rs.43,000/, the Tribunal rejected the stand of the appellants/claimants that the earnings of deceased were Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Deducting therefrom half of the said income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and taking the age of the younger of the parents as the basis for determining the multiplier as 14, the Tribunal quantified the compensation at loss of dependency as Rs.5,88,000/-. By adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses etc., it determined the total compensation as Rs.6,08,000/-. As noted above, interest at the rate of 6% per annum was also awarded.
5.Being aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 in this appeal, preferred appeal to the High Court. Rejecting the plea of the owner of the vehicle that his lorry was not involved in the accident, the High Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of the Income Tax Return the income of the deceased could not be more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. The High Court, however, calculated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. The High Court, however, did not interfere with the deduction towards the personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as also the other amounts awarded to the claimants. The High Court, thus, chose to reduce the compensation amount awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal from Rs.6,08,000/- to Rs.3,56,000/- on the ground that the monthly earnings of the deceased had been taken on the higher side at Rs.7,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants are before us.
6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the High Court, while taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, has ignored other evidence brought on record by the claimants, namely, the sale figures of his business from M/s Bharath Packing Cases Industry for the period from 1st April, 1998 to 31st March, 1999 as reflected in the ledger accounts of one M/s Vasu Agarbathi (Ex.P-23), one of the customers of the deceased. It was also conte
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.