SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 125

2012 (2) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Yogesh Devi & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1987 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17186 of 2009)
Decided on : 10-2-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation in motor accident case should be just and not a windfall for the victim.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Deceased owning three buses and himself driving one of them – In addition he also having agricultural income – While determining income of the deceased or loss to the dependents the courts below opining that agricultural income would continue to accrue to the family and there is no loss on that account – Ownership of the buses not taken as asset of the family – In fact the income from the buses would also continue to accrue to the family – The actual loss would be loss of salary of the deceased as driver and salary of the person needed to be engaged for managing the buses – Compensation modified. (Paras 11 to 14)

        (2003) 7 SCC 484 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This case relates to compensation in motor vehicle accident, and more particularly assessment of income of the deceased and multiplying factor.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

Leave granted.

2. One Vijender Singh along with two others Bhagwan Das and Manish, was travelling by a motor cycle on 10-12-2002. The said motor cycle was hit by a truck bearing registration No. RJ-14G-1556, resulting in the death of both Vijender Singh and Bhagwan Das. Respondent No.1 is the wife, Respondents 2 to 5 are the children, Respondent No.6, we are informed, is the mother of the deceased Vijender Singh. Respondents 1 to 6 herein filed an application against the appellant herein and others for compensation. The appellant, admittedly, is the insurer of the abovementioned truck. A huge claim of Rs.1,86,30,000/-, was made towards compensation on the ground that the deceased Vijender Singh was earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month. The Tribunal, by its Judgment dated 06-02-2006, awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000-00 and provided for appropriate deductions for the amounts, which had already been paid and also gave necessary directions for safeguarding the interest of the minor children.

3. From the Judgment of the Tribunal it appears that the claimants based their claim on the facts that the deceased Virender Singh was the owner of three vehicles (mini buses) and also certain agricultural land. It appears from the record that no evidence regarding the amount of income derived from the above mentioned properties is adduced. The only evidence available is the statement of the 1st respondent that the deceased used to give her an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month. She also admitted in her cross examination that the deceased was not filing any income tax returns. Therefore, the Tribunal reached a conclusion that the

The petitioners are not entitled to any other compensation and they are held entitled to receive the following amount of compensation:

1. On a/c of loss of dependency from income = Rs.9,60,000.00

2. For loss of consortium to Petitioner No.1 = Rs. 10,000.00

3. For loss of love and affection to petitioner No.2 to 6 @ 5000/- each = Rs. 25,000.00

4. For funeral expenses = Rs. 5,000.00

———————————-

Total Rs. 10,00,000.00

statement of the 1st respondent, that the deceased was earning more than Rs.35,000/-, cannot be believed. However, the Tribunal opined as under:

“Thus keeping in view the fact of ownership of two buses and one bus given on contract and the agriculture land it can be said that the deceased was earning Rs.3900/-per month in the capacity of the driver of a bus. Keeping in view the remaining buses and agriculture land it will be appropriate to hold the income of the deceased at Rs.7380/- because in case he would have earned more than the said amount, he must have filed the income tax return. If the deceased would remain alive he must have spent 1/3rd upon himself, therefore it would be appropriate to hold the monthly dependency at Rs.5000/-.”

4. Aggrieved by the said determination of the compensation made by the Tribunal, the claimants as well as the appellant herein carried the matter in Appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the Appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed, whereas the Appeal preferred by the claimants (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1222 of 2006) was partially allowed modifying the Award of the Tribunal. The High Court by its Judgment dated 30-01-2009 opined that the deceased Vijender Singh’s income should be taken at Rs.24,000/- per month of which 1/3rd is treated to be an amount, which the deceased would have spent on himself and the balance on the claimants. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,72,000/-, and directed:

“However, the rest of the award is confirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. 24.3.03 till the realization to the claimants within a period of two months. The learned Tribunal is directed to insure that the enhanced amount of compensation is paid to the claim

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top