Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1402
2009(6) Supreme 106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Deepak Vverma, JJ.
National Insurance Company Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Kimlibai & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5089 of 2009
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15917 2006]
Decided on : 04-08-2009
For the Appellant :Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma, Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondents:T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh, S.N. Singh, Vikas Mehta, Advocates.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death of deceased a carpenter aged 40 years in a motor accident – Claim petition by respondent claimants-Award of Rs.2,32,762/-by Tribunal-Appeal thereagainst – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.4,84,000 – Appeal – Plea of insurance company that the amount enhanced by the High Court was excessive and exorbitant, as without there being any basis, it had been assessed that deceased could have earned Rs.100/- per day – No dispute that deceased was working as a carpenter – Thus, obviously working as such, even in the year 1997 he could have comfortably earned Rs.100/- per day – This had also been admitted by P.W.3 with whom deceased was employed that he was being paid Rs.100/- per day – Even if he was working only for six months in a year as carpenter and for remaining six months he was working in his own field, that would not have materially affected his income – While he was working in his own field, he was contributing to augment his income and thereby was saving Rs.100/- per day on the labour that he would have spent, if he had not worked himself – As far as application of proper multiplier was concerned, looking to the age of the deceased and that of the widow, multiplier of 17 which had been applied by High Court was proper and not called for interference. (Paras 16 to 18)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death of deceased a carpenter aged 40 years in a motor accident – Claim petition by respondent claimants-Award of Rs.2,32,762/-by Tribunal-Appeal thereagainst – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.4,84,000 – Appeal – Plea of insurance company that deduction of only 1/4th towards his personal expenses from his total income had wrongly been allowed and it should have been 1/3rd of his total income – Deceased had left behind a large family to be looked after, who all were dependents on his income – Keeping in mind the family background, High Court had deducted 1/4th amount as the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself- High Court committed no error in deducting only 1/4th amount from total income of the deceased towards the expenses which would have been incurred on himself – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 19 to 21)
(2009) 6 SCC 121, relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
Death of deceased a carpenter aged 40 years in a motor accident herein in the instant case. On Claim petition by respondent claimants Tribunal Awarded Rs.2,32,762/.On Appeal thereagainst, High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.4,84,000.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
No dispute that deceased was working as a carpenter. Thus, obviously working as such, even in the year 1997 he could have comfortably earned Rs.100/- per day. This had also been admitted by P.W.3 with whom deceased was employed that he was being paid Rs.100/- per day. Even if he was working only for six months in a year as carpenter and for remaining six months he was working in his own field, that would not have materially affected his income. While he was working in his own field, he was contributing to augment his income and thereby was saving Rs.100/- per day on the labour that he would have spent, if he had not worked himself. As far as application of proper multiplier was concerned, looking to the age of the deceased and that of the widow, multiplier of 17 which had been applied by High Court was proper and not called for interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Vir Singh aged about 40 years, carpenter by profession met with a motor accident on 24th May 1997, while he was travelling in a jeep bearing No.MP11-4690 which was hit from behind by an offending truck, bearing No.MP09-D-5665. He sustained injuries, was given first-aid in the hospital but succumbed to the same at 5.00 p.m. on the same date.
3. Respondent nos.1 to 8 herein, claiming to be the widow, sons, daughter and aged parents of the deceased, filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, M.P. (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) registered as Claim Case No.202 of 2003. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.8,31,000/- against the respondents, i.e., insurance company (appellant herein), owner and driver of the truck.
4. Both, the owner and the driver of the truck, were proceeded ex-parte and they did not file any written statement.
5. The appellant herein, arrayed as respondent no.3 in the Claim Case, filed its written statement generally denying the averments made in the Claim Case.
6. It was contended by the insurance company before the Tribunal that respondent no.2-driver did not have a valid and proper licence to drive the truck at the relevant point of time and no information was given to the appellant nor was any claim form submitted. Therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation.
7. It further contended that the driver of the jeep, which was hit from behind by the offending truck, also did not have a valid driving licence and the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, in any case no liability can be fastened on the appellant-insurance company and prayed for its exoneration.
8. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. It appears that the appellant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence that was led by the respondent-claimants.
9. From the voluminous material available on record, it has neither been disputed before us, nor was it agitated in the High Court that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and at the relevant point of time, it was owned by respondent no.9/10 and driven by respondent no.11.
10. These facts having not been disputed before us, we have only to consider whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal and as enhanced in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, was proper or not.
11. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,32,762/- together with interest at the rate of 9% against the appellant and respondent nos.9, 10 and 11 herein. The said figure was arrived at on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs.84/- per day and adding certain expenses towards conventional heads and then applying the multiplier of 15.
12. Feeling aggrieved by the said award and order passed by the Tribunal on 20th February 2004, an appeal was carried under Section 173 of the Act to the High Court.
13. In appeal, the High Court came to the conclusion that it can safely be assumed that deceased Vir Singh, who was working as carpenter before his death in the year 1997, must be earning Rs.100/- per day. Thus, his monthly income would be Rs.3,000/-. Keeping in mind the large family of dependents, as mentioned hereinabove, i.e., the widow, sons, daughter and aged parents, in all 8 persons, 1/4th of the total income so arrived at, was directed to be deducted towards the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself and the multiplier of 17 was applied. Thus, the High Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4,59,000/-. The High Court awarded an additional lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- under various conventional heads thereby making a total compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- with further stipulation that the enhanced sum would carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the appli
