Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Birender and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 242243 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 976977 of 2020), (Diary No. 47693 of 2018) with Civil Appeal No. 244 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 978 of 2020) (Diary No. 17683 of 2019)
Decided on : 13-01-2020
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Claim application – Locus Standi to file – Major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on deceased, would be still covered by expression “legal representative” of deceased – Liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of concerned legal representative – Legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation – Even major married and earning sons of deceased being legal representatives have right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of Tribunal to consider application irrespective of fact whether concerned legal representative was fully dependant on deceased and not to limit claim towards conventional heads only. (Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Rule 5(2) – Compensation – Deductions – Death in road accident – Victim was a lady and claimants are her major sons – Total compensation of Rs.17,40,532/- along with 9% interest awarded by Tribunal – High Court reduced compensation awarded by Tribunal to the extent of Rs.4,84,716/- and gave liberty to appellant to recover excess amount, if already paid – Any deduction from gross salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned – In that, actual salary less tax amount ought to have been taken into consideration by Tribunal for determining compensation amount – High Court, instead of providing for deduction of amount receivable by legal representatives of deceased on this count (under 2006 Rules), from compensation amount, should have independently determined compensation amount and ordered payment thereof subject to legal representatives of deceased filing affidavit/declaration before executing Court that they have not received nor would they claim any amount towards financial assistance under 2006 Rules, so as to become entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount – If dependant family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased should be taken as one-third – Deduction towards personal expenses to the extent of 50% is excessive and not just and proper considering the fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith their respective families were staying with deceased at relevant time and were largely dependent on her income – As regards multiplier ‘13’ applied by Tribunal and High Court, same needs no interference – Total sum of Rs.31,96,230/- is payable to claimants alongwith 9% interest – However, this amount will be payable subject to outcome of application made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to competent authority for grant of financial assistance under 2006 Rules. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Death in road accident. Instant civil appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in cross appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 1341 of 2016 (O&M) and 4023 of 2016 (O&M), questioning correctness of the award dated 4.12.2015 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
High Court, without reversing the said finding, proceeded to include the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month received by deceased as pension amount after demise of her husband. We are in agreement with view taken by Tribunal and for same reason, have to reverse conclusion recorded by the High Court to include the said amount as loss of dependency. That could not have been taken into account, as the same was payable only to deceased being widow and not her income as such for the purpose of computing amount of compensation.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These civil appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the High Court’) in cross appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 1341 of 2016 (O&M) and 4023 of 2016 (O&M), questioning the correctness of the award dated 4.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 205 of 2014. The former appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No……/2020 @ Diary No. 47693/2018) has been preferred by the insurance company and the latter appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No……./2020 @ Diary No. 17683/2019) by the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The parties are referred to as per their status in the former appeal for the sake of convenience.
4. The claim petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the major sons of Smt. Sunheri Devi (deceased). The deceased was on her way to attend the office of Tehsildar, Uchana (where she was working as a Peon) from Dharoli Khera village on 20.10.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No. HR-32-G-8749. At that time, a dumper/tipper bearing registration No. HR-56-A-3260 coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries sustained to the deceased to which she succumbed.
5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the assertion that the deceased was earning Rs.28000/- per month (Rs.21000/- as salary and Rs.7000/- as family pension of her husband), she was hale and healthy and was the only bread earner of her entire family and that they were largely dependant upon her income and have also been deprived of her love and affection. The appellant disputed the claim and pleaded that the accident did not occur with the offending vehicle (the dumper/tipper) or due to fault of its driver, and that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were majors and not dependant upon the deceased and as such not entitled for any compensation. Further, the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Resultantly, the insurance company-appellant was not liable to pay compensation.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further noted that the driver and the owner of offending vehicle have placed on record the driving licence of the driver, valid insurance policy, public carrier permit and the registration certificate of the offending vehicle and the appellant having failed to lead any evidence to prove that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated, cannot be absolved of its liability. The Tribunal also noted that though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were major and earning hands, the fact that they were legal heirs of the deceased and have been deprived of the pecuniary benefits through the deceased cannot be denied.
7. Having decided the above issues in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal while determining the quantum of compensation took note of the gross monthly salary of the deceased as on September, 2014, which according to her service record was Rs.23,123/- and the net take home salary was Rs.16,918/-. The Tribunal did not consider the family pension for computation, as the deceased was getting it in her own right as widow and the same could not be reckoned. Her date of birth was 1.4.1967 and date due for retirement was 31.3.2027, for which multiplier of ‘13’ was applied. The deduction towards personal expenses was kept at 50% as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were major and earning hands. Thus, the loss of depende
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
