Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, R. SUBHASH REDDY, SURYA KANT, JJ.
M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
CIVILAPPEALNO.2558 OF2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.19221 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-06-2020
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in road accident – Total compensation of Rs. 65,60,347.20. awarded by Tribunal after recording a finding that accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of vehicle – In appeal, High Court recalculated compensation payable to appellants at Rs.57,78,480/- – Tribunal, by recording a finding that deceased was in age group of 40 to 50 years, applied multiplier of 13 while calculating compensation – High Court, while maintaining multiplier of 13, has reduced compensation only on the ground that deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of accident, as such compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30% – When age of deceased was considered in group of 40 to 50 years, High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30% – Considering age group as 40 to 50 years, when multiplier of 13 is maintained by High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects – Compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and same was interfered with by High Court without any valid grounds – Judgment passed by High Court set aside and award passed by Tribunal restored. (Paras 6, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Present civil appeal is filed by the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K., aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed in Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
Findings of the Court:
For loss of love and affection, when the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not entitled for another Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same but, at the same time though appellants have claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards the respective heads. Taking into account facts and circumstances of case, we are of the view that even such grant of Rs.1,00,000/- ought not have been reduced by High Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal is filed by the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) in MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed in Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
3. Necessary facts in brief are as under :
The deceased S.T. Devaraju was the husband of first appellant and father of appellant nos.2 and 3. On 16.07.2012 when he was travelling in the car, viz., Tata Indigo Manza bearing registration no.KA- 19-MC-5879 to Raichur, the said car met with an accident. The deceased Devaraju suffered severe injuries and subsequently died. The deceased Devaraju was working as Commissioner of Raichur City Municipal Corporation during the relevant time.
4. The appellants herein, alleging that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- and he was the KGS Cadre officer selected through Public Service Commission. Further pleading that due to untimely death of the deceased, the appellants lost dependency and the deceased was having bright future, the above said claim was made. The claim was opposed by the respondents by filing the written statement. The appellants have led oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The first appellant was examined as PW-1 and on their behalf the other two witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and documents Ex.P1 to P24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and only a copy of the Insurance Policy was marked as exhibit, with consent.
5. The Tribunal, by considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and proceeded to quantify the compensation. Having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was earning Rs.50,463/- p.m. by way of salary, by applying the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied the multiplier of 13 and by giving 30% towards future prospects, arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,02,33,912. Out of the said sum, by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure and 10% towards income tax, the Tribunal has held that the appellant-claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.61,40,347.20 towards loss of dependency. By further awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first appellant and Rs.3,00,000/- for all the appellants towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs.65,60,347.20.
6. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the first respondent – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred Misc. First Appeal No.4903 of 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The award of the Tribunal was mainly assailed before the High Court on three grounds, namely, that as the deceased was over 50 years of age, the Tribunal committed error in computing the future prospects at 30%; secondly it was the case of the first respondent that as the first appellant was claiming family pension, deduction should have been made while computing the loss of dependency; and thirdly by awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first appellant towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal again granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to all the appellants under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. The High Court, on the ground that the de
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
