Back
2010 (7) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, J.
Arun Kumar Agrawal and another — Appellants
versus
National Insurance Company and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19655 of 2004)
Decided on : 22-7-2010
(2009) 6 SCC 121; (1994) 2 SCC 176; (1996) 4 SCC 362 – Relied upon
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A and 166 – It is open to the victim of an accident or his dependants either to proceed under Section 166 or Section 163-A – Under Section 166 they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned – Under Section 163-A, on the other hand, compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle. (Para 16)
(2004) 5 SCC 385; (2007) 5 SCC 428; (1977) 2 SCC 441; (1987) 3 SCC 234; (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Relied upon
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Practice to deduct lumpsum payments from the compensation awarded disapproved – Even though the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule is not applicable in strict sense in a case under Section 166, whenever the Court has to apply the appropriate multiplier several factors including the income of the deceased, his family background will have to be taken into consideration. (Para 18)
(2009) 13 SCC 654; (2009) 13 SCC 710 – Relied upon
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Although a wife’s services cannot be assessed in financial terms, the surviving close relations like children and husband are entitled to suitable compensation. (Paras 20 to 22 and 24)
(1915) 1 K.B. 627; (1976) 1 W.L.R. 305; (1977) 2 All ER 52; (2001) 8 SCC 197 – Relied upon
(e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 163-A – It is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period – Section 163A does apply to the claims for compensation filed under Section 166 – However in absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, held, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier. (Para 32)
(1994) 2 SCC 176; (1996) 4 SCC 362; (2009) 6 SCC 121; (2001) 8 SCC 197 – Relied upon
1989 ACJ 542; JK-0180-2002; (2009) ACJ 1373 – Cited with approval
(2003) VII AD (Delhi) 222; 96 (2002) DLT 829; 112 (2004) DLT 417; 112 (2004) DLT 478 – Disapproved
Facts of the case:
The question raised in this appeal is what should be the criteria for determination of the compensation payable to the dependents of a woman who dies in a road accident and who does not have regular source of income.
Finding of the Court:
It is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee, who works for a fixed period.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. What should be the criteria for determination of the compensation payable to the dependents of a woman who dies in a road accident and who does not have regular source of income is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court which declined to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellants by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
3. Smt. Renu Agrawal (wife of appellant No.1 - Arun Kumar Agrawal and mother of appellant No.2 - Suwarna Agrawal) died in a road accident when the car driven by appellant No.1 was hit by truck bearing No.UGK- 489 in village Pachkora, District Hardoi, U.P. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for award of compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- by asserting that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck which was owned by respondent No.2, Mohd. Farooq and was insured with respondent No.1. They pleaded that the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident and due to her death, life of appellant No.1 had become miserable inasmuch as being a government servant he was unable to look after his minor child. They further pleaded that the deceased used to look after domestic affairs of the family and both the appellants have been deprived of the care, love and affection of the deceased and the comfort of her company.
4. The owner of the truck (respondent No.2), its driver (respondent No.4) and the insurance company (respondent No.1) contested the claim. All of them denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.4. According to them, appellant No.1 was responsible for the accident. They disputed the dependency of the appellants and the quantum specified in the claim petition. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that it was not liable to pay compensation because driving licence of respondent No.4 was not valid; that the owner had not complied with Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act and that the owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo UP-65/4559, which was also involved in the accident were not made parties.
5. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.4 and being legal heirs of the deceased, the appellants are entitled to compensation. While dealing with the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal extensively referred to the statement of appellant No.1, who stated that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- by engaging herself in paintings and handicrafts. The Tribunal held that the deceased was deeply involved in the family affairs and after her death, the entire family was broken and as a result of that, working capacity of appellant No.1 was decreased. The Tribunal noted that at the time of accident monthly income of appellant No.1 was Rs.15,416/- and held that in view of clause 6 of Second Schedule of the Act, the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.60,000/- per annum) and after making deduction of Rs.20,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6 lacs. However, instead of awarding that amount as compensation, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.2,50,000/- by making the following observations:
“The claimants are entitled to this amount of compensation but keeping in mind that the deceased was actually not an earning member and this is only based on notional income. The amount of compensation is too much and as such a lesser multiplier could be adopted in the present case. In the circumstances of this case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation from the insurance company. This issue is accordingly decided with the above
gpt-4
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
