SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
KANHSINGH & ANR – APPELLANTS
Vs.
TUKARAM & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 OF 2014)
Decided On : 13-01-2015
(2013) 7 SCC 476; (2009) 15 SCC 363; (2009) 6 SCC 121; (2013) 9 SCC 54; 2013 (12) SCALE 324; (2011)14 SCC 481 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the appellants herein, aged 27 years, was driving the motor cycle along with his friend Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which was being ridden by Deependra met with an accident when it was hit by tanker driven by Tukaram, respondent No. 1 herein. Deependra Singh succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment.
The claimant-appellants, parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,10,014/-.
The High Court partly allowed the said appeal and disposed of the same with an enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
The total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/-with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Judgment and order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore wherein the High Court partly allowed and disposed of the Miscellaneous Appeal No.2918 of 2009 filed by the appellants.
3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to determine whether the appellants are entitled for relief as prayed in this appeal.
4. On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the appellants herein, aged 27 years, was driving the motor cycle No. MP-09-LM-8244 along with his friend Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which was being ridden by Deependra met with an accident when it was hit by tanker No. MP-14-B-6645 driven by Tukaram, respondent No. 1 herein. Deependra Singh succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment.
5. The claimant-appellants, parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jawra, District Ratlam (M.P.) (in short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, for a compensation of Rs.27,85,000/-. The Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the Claim Petition by awarding a total sum of Rs.12,10,014/-.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2918 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court by its judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 partly allowed the said appeal and disposed of the same with an enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.
7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the courts below failed to notice that the deceased was 27 years of age and was posted as the Manager at HDFC Bank at the time of the accident. He would have served for another 35 years if he would have been alive and during that period his salary would have certainly doubled. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 476 , wherein it was held thus:-
“31. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. this Court noticed that the High Court determined the compensation by granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that in the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that period his salary would have certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court….”
8. It is further contended that the courts below have erred in the computation of income of the deceased as Rs. 11,146/-p.m. In the case of Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. v. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 363 and in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 this Court observed that the deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration the calculation of the income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.15,155/- p.m.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on all material issues of fact but observed that the quantum of compensation in respect of loss due to death deserved to be enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the High Court has already enhanced the compensation sufficiently, which does not call for interference of this Court with the impugned judgment.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, the courts below have erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,146/-p.m. From the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.
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.