Back
2009(3) Supreme 535
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Rani Gupta & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2241 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.20207 of 2007)
Decided on : 08-04-2009
(1996) 3 SCC 179; (2008) 2 SCC 763; (1996) 4 SCALE 22 : (1996) 4 SCC 362 – Relied upon.
2007 (2) SCALE 227 – Referred.
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Subject to just exceptions, a lump sum amount equivalent to 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards living and miscellaneous expenses, should be deducted from the income. (Para 15)
2007 (12) SCALE 792 – Relied upon.
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Multiplicand would be annual dependency multiplied by life expectancy minus age of the deceased. (Para 17)
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Determination of compensation – Multiplier method – The provision, though beneficent, does not contemplate unjust enrichment. (Para 17)
1942 (1) All ELR 657; (1999) 1 SCC 90; (2005) 10 SCC 720; (2002) 6 SCC 281; (1994) 2 SCC 176 – Relied upon.
(e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Determination of compensation – Multiplier method – The multiplier specified in the Second Schedule may not be decisive for calculating compensation in cases of death – The word multiplier has been used only for the purpose of calculating damages in the case of permanent disability and not in the case of death. (Para 19)
(f) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 – Deceased being a businessman, actual loss of dependency to the family was his contribution to run the business – Assets of the business remained – Application of the multiplier of 10, therefore, cannot be said to be bad in law. (Paras 24 and 25)
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant filed an application before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal praying for payment of compensation for the death of her husband Praveen Kumar Gupta who was travelling in a private car driven by his friend Shri Avtar Singh.
2. Before the learned Tribunal, one of the questions which was raised is as to whether a passenger in a car which was being driven negligently would be covered by the policy of insurance.
3. First Respondent preferred an appeal against the award of the Tribunal.
4. The question raised before the High Court was as to whether the deceased having been travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a private car would fall within the meaning of ‘third party’ and, thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act.
5. The learned Judge noticed that the policy was “Private Car Package Policy” as notified by the Tariff Advisory Committee with effect from 1.7.2002
6. It was furthermore opined that the object and purpose of Section 146 and 147 is that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of a person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act.
7. The learned Judge held the loss occasioned due to death of the deceased to be Rs.12,50,000/-
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the ultimate judgment of the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC No.986 of 2006 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the first respondent herein under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) was allowed.
3. Appellant filed an application before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal praying for payment of compensation for the death of her husband Praveen Kumar Gupta who was travelling in a private Indica Car driven by his friend Shri Avtar Singh.
Shri Ankit and Shri Rajendra Jindal (the deceased) were returning from Agra after attending some business promotion work. The accident took place as the said car ran into a tree. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Rajendra Jindal died on the spot. Ankit suffered injuries.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, one of the questions which was raised is as to whether a passenger in a car which was being driven negligently would be covered by the policy of insurance.
5. The learned Tribunal, applying the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor, opined that Shri Avtar Singh was driving the car rashly and negligently. Having regard to the income tax returns filed by the deceased, the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that his annual income was Rs.1,87,500/-. In view of the age of the deceased and the children having attained the age of majority, multiplier of 13 was applied in determining the amount of compensation. Upon deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal use from his annual income, the total amount of compensation, thus, was arrived at in the following terms :
“Annual Income Rs. 1,25,000
Future Increase in income Rs. 2,50,000
Rs. 3,75,000
Mean/Average income Rs. 1,87,500
Less: 1/3rd towards personal use
An consumption Rs. 62,500
Annual Dependency Rs. 1,25,000
Hence
a) Loss of Financial depend- Rs. 16,25,000
ency (1,25,000 x 13)
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000
c) Loss of love and affection Rs. 75,000
(25,000 X 3)
d) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,40,000"
6. First Respondent preferred an appeal thereagainst.
7. The question raised before the High Court was as to whether the deceased having been travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a private car would fall within the meaning of ‘third party’ and, thus, would be covered by the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Act. The learned Judge noticed that the policy was “Private Car Package Policy” as notified by the Tariff Advisory Committee with effect from 1.7.2002, the terms and conditions whereof are :
“SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTY
1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of :
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward)but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured.
(ii) Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured.”
8. It was furthermore opined that the object and purpose of Section 146 and 147 is that policy of insurance should cover liability in respect of death or bodily injury of a person including owner of the goods or its authorized representative who may be carried in a goods vehicle/carriage as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act.
9. The learned Judge, however, having regard to several decisions of this Court in particular UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chand [(1996) 4 SCALE 22 = (1996) 4 SCC 362], as also various other decisions including New India Assurance Co. v. Kalpan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
