Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 484

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – APPELLANT(S)
VS.
MANNAT JOHAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4079-4081 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 742-744 OF 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4082-4083 OF 2019 @ SLP(CIVIL) NO. 10371-10372 OF 2019 @ DIARY NO. 9529 OF 2019
Decided on : 23-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate, Mr. Arun Nagar, Advocate, Ms.Tanuj Bagga, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Dr. M.K. Ravi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
In a motor accident claim the compensation must be just.
The ex gratia amount paid be employer may not be deducted.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Just compensation – Loss of dependency – Tribunal, instead of taking the last drawn emoluments of the deceased, proceeding on his enhanced projected emoluments after the expected promotion and pay revision – Not providing for any further future prospects – Not making any deduction towards tax component – Deducting one-third towards personal expenses of deceased though he had had five dependents – Resultantly applying wrong multiplicand – High Court vcorrecting errors and awarding just compensation – No infirmity. (Para 10, 11)
       2017 ACJ 2700 (SC); 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC); 2016 ACJ 2723 (SC) – Relied upon
       (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Just compensation – Ex gratia amount given by employer of the deceased – Whether deductible – Instantly not required to be deducted – More so in view of High Court allowing only 40% towards future prospects and reducing interest from 12% to 7.5%. (Para 12, 13)
       2019 ACJ 34 (SC) – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       These cross-appeals relating to the vehicular accident compensation claims, respectively by the insurer of the offending vehicle and by the claimants, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 06.07.2018, as passed in FAO No. 1136 of 2000 (O & M) and connected matters, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by the claimants and has modified the common award as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case Nos. 80 of 1996 and 84 of 1996 that were filed respectively by the parents and by the wife and children of the deceased Shri Rajpal Singh Johal.
       In the impugned judgment and order the High Court has made upward revision of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, in place of the amount of Rs. 37,71,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
       Finding of the Court:
       No interference warranted.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari. J.

The application for substitution of legal representatives in the petition filed on behalf of the claimants is allowed; the named legal representative shall stand substituted in the both the petitions. Delay condoned in the petition filed on behalf of the claimants.

1.1. Leave granted in the both the petitions.

2. These cross-appeals relating to the vehicular accident compensation claims, respectively by the insurer of the offending vehicle and by the claimants, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 06.07.2018, as passed in FAO No. 1136 of 2000 (O & M) and connected matters, whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has allowed the appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by the claimants and has modified the common award dated 27.01.2000 as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in MACT Case Nos. 80 of 1996 and 84 of 1996 that were filed respectively by the parents and by the wife and children of the deceased Shri Rajpal Singh Johal.

3. In the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2018, the High Court has made upward revision of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, in place of the amount of Rs. 37,71,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The High Court has allowed this enhancement essentially with reference to the principles enunciated by this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC).

4. In these appeals, on one hand, the insurer of the offending vehicle has questioned the quantum of compensation so awarded, basically on the ground that while making assessment of pecuniary loss, the ex gratia amount received by the claimants from the employer of the deceased deserves to be deducted while, on the other hand, the claimants have questioned the reduction of the rate of interest by the High Court.

4.1. Therefore, the basic question for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court is that of just compensation or the same calls for any modification?

5. The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question at hand, may be noticed, in brief, as follows:

5.1. The vehicular accident in question occurred on 30.12.1995, at about 1 p.m., near the police out post Bagari (Assam), when the deceased Shri Rajpal Singh Johal was driving a car, taking his wife and children along, from Kaziranga to Guwahati. The offending vehicle, being an oil tanker bearing registration No. AS-01-9526, rammed into the car driven by the deceased while coming from the opposite direction. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in this accident while his wife was also injured and their two children suffered severe shock.

5.2. On account of demise of the victim Shri Rajpal Singh Johal due to the injuries sustained in the accident aforesaid, two claim applications came to be made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh: one on 14.05.1996 by the parents of deceased, being MACT Case No. 80 of 1996; and another on 22.05.1996 by the wife and minor children of the deceased, being MACT Case No. 84 of 1996. The sum and substance of the allegations in claim applications had been that the deceased met with his untimely end for the accident in question that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker in question. It was asserted that the deceased was 38 years of age; was working as General Manager (Marketing) with Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali; was drawing gross annual salary of Rs. 3,21,801.60 with perks just prior to the accident; and he was due to be promoted as the Associate Vice President in January 1996 whereby, his annual salary would have been enhan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 484

IMPORTANT POINTSIn a motor accident claim the compensation must be just.The ex gratia amount paid be employer may not be deducted.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
In a motor accident claim the compensation must be just.
The ex gratia amount paid be employer may not be deducted.