Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1658
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
SAVITA & ORS. - APPELLANTS
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21822 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14233 of 2017)
Decided On : 05-12-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Preetam Shah, Adv., Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Baid, Adv., Mr. J.N. Singh, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 13 Scale 12, allowing for an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - 2017 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors. - [Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court affirmed the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal but granted additional aggregate amount to the appellants based on the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 13 Scale 12, allowing for an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an accident resulting in the death of Santosh due to the negligent driving of a bus. The appellants sought enhancement of the compensation amount, while the respondent opposed the appeal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and contended that the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal was just and proper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the bus driver, and the Tribunal had rightly determined the compensation amount. However, based on the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court, the court granted an additional aggregate amount to the appellants to meet the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved territorial jurisdiction, quantum of compensation, and entitlement to additional compensation based on recent legal developments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal and upheld the findings regarding the accident and the deceased's notional income. The court also applied the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Court to grant additional compensation to the appellants.
Final Decision: The court awarded an additional aggregate amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the appellants, to be deposited within eight weeks, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal justifiability of the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in MFA No.201210 of 2015(MV), whereby it has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII, Bizapur (Vijyapur), determining the compensation amount of Rs.8,51,000/-(Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. The Tribunal did not provide any interest on the medical bills amount of Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand).
3. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence has held that the accident occurred on 23.08.2013 resulting in death of Santosh who was riding motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BJ-2733 along with pillion riders, on account of rash and negligent driving of the transport bus of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bearing No.MH-14/BT-0575. That finding has been affirmed by the High Court. The High Court also affirmed the computation of compensation amount by the Tribunal quantified at Rs.8,51,000/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand). The Tribunal in paragraph no. 13 of the judgment took into account notional income of deceased Santosh, who was an agriculturist and also doing other work, at Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) per month; and considering his age of 34 years coupled with the fact that there were 4 dependent members in the family, provided deduction towards personal and living expenses to the extent of 1/4th and applied multiplier of 16 for determining the compensation amount.
4. The Tribunal also provided the addition towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, and loss of consortium in the aggregate amount of Rs.90,000/-(Ninety Thousand). In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses besides the medical expenses quantified at Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand Rupees).
5. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. The respondent has opposed this appeal inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal at Bizapur (Vijyapur) had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Besides, it is contended that the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is just and proper.
6. We have heard Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that the respondent did not object to the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII, Bizapur (Vijyapur) at the first instance. This fact has been noted even by the High Court. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the High Court – that it was not open to the respondent to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction at such a belated stage.
7. The fact that the accident had occurred on account of negligent driving of the bus driver is substantiated from the record and has been so found by two courts below. Similarly, the finding regarding the notional income of the deceased taken as Rs. 5,000/-(Five Thousand Rupees) per month as also his age on the date of accident to be around 34 years and left behind 4 (four) dependents in his family, is also unexceptional. The only issue that needs to be addressed in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction towards personal and living expenses to the extent of 1/4th with multiplier at 16. Accordingly, the loss of dependency determined by the Tribunal, as upheld by the High Court, to the extent of Rs.7,20,000/-(Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand) needs no interference.
8. The Tribunal, however, has granted additional amount towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consorti
