SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Smt. Sangita Arya & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28724 of 2018)
Decided on : 16-06-2020
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Death in road accident – Deceased aged 35 years – Total compensation of Rs. 12,55,000/- with 6% interest awarded by Tribunal – However, total compensation awarded to claimants reduced from Rs. 12,55,000/- to Rs. 5,81,440/- by High Court – High Court has erroneously observed that deceased was running a parallel business by plying two taxis and held that income derived from same could not be taken into consideration for assessing the compensation – These findings being based on a completely erroneous assumption, are liable to be set aside – Impugned order passed by High Court bristles with serious factual inaccuracies – High Court was not justified in disregarding ITR for year 2006-07 while assessing income of deceased – Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside – Courts below have not awarded any amount towards future prospects – Future prospects @40% of income of deceased awarded – Deceased left behind five dependants, deduction towards his personal expenses would be 1/4th – Multiplier adopted by MACT and High Court at 16 is appropriate – Even though Claimants/Appellants herein did not file appeal against Award passed by MACT before High Court, it is appropriate to enhance compensation by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India in order to do complete justice between parties – Amount of compensation enhanced to Rs. 17,50,000/-. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present civil appeal has been filed by Claimants/Dependents of one Harish Singh Arya, who died at the age of 35 years in a motor vehicle accident on 18.06.2007. Enforcement Team was able to stop the offending vehicle, however the driver of the vehicle fled from the spot. While Harish Singh Arya was being taken to Bareilly for hospitalization, he succumbed to his injuries.
Findings of the Court:
Even though the Claimants/Appellants herein did not file an Appeal against the Award dated 22.12.2009 passed by the MACT before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation by exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to do complete justice between the parties.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Indu Malhotra, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present civil appeal has been filed by the Claimants/Dependents of one Harish Singh Arya, who died at the age of 35 years in a motor vehicle accident on 18.06.2007.
2. On 18.06.2007, the deceased Harish Singh Arya had taken his uncle Govind Lal Arya, an Enforcement Officer for Passenger Tax, Champawat for inspection in his taxi. The taxi had stopped on the side of the road at Village Chandini near Tanakpur Khatema Road, Uttarakhand. The deceased had gone to answer natures call on the side of the road, when at about 2:30 p.m., one Tata Sumo bearing No. UP-02D-5208, being driven at a high speed from the wrong side of the road, hit the deceased, and seriously injured him. The Enforcement Team was able to stop the offending vehicle, however the driver of the vehicle fled from the spot. While Harish Singh Arya was being taken to Bareilly for hospitalization, he succumbed to his injuries. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by Mr. Govind Lal Arya, the uncle of the deceased, at P.S. Banbasa.
3. The Claimants filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haldwani Court of First Fast Track, Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (MACT) being Compensation Claim No. 158 of 2007 for compensation on behalf of five dependents i.e. the widow, two minor daughters, and the parents of the deceased.
The Claimants submitted that the deceased owned two taxis from which he earned approximately Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. after deduction of all expenses.
The road accident was proved by the oral testimony of the eyewitness Shri Govind Lal Arya (PW2), who was accompanying the deceased, and had lodged the F.I.R. With respect to payment of compensation, the Claimants submitted that the deceased owned two taxis, which generated an income of Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. The R.T.O., Motor Vehicles Department, Haldwani produced certificates of both the vehicles bearing No. UP-02D-5111 and UP-04D-0111 before the MACT, which showed that the vehicles were purchased by the deceased Harish Singh Arya, and were registered in his name.
The Claimants filed four Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the deceased for the years 200203, 200304, 200405, and 200607. The ITR for the year 200607 was Rs. 98,500 p.a. A photocopy of the ITR bearing the stamp of receipt from the Income Tax Department, was placed on record.
4. The MACT vide Award dated 22.12.2009 held that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 35 years of age, and his income was Rs. 1,00,000 p.a. The deceased had left behind five dependents i.e. his wife, parents and two minor daughters. The MACT deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses, and adopted the multiplier of 16. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 12,20,000
The MACT further awarded Rs. 20,000 to the widow towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 to the minor daughters towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded to the Claimants worked out to Rs. 12,55,000 with Interest @6% p.a.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Insurance Company filed Appeal from Order No. 117 of 2010 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2016 erroneously assumed that the deceased was a Government servant, and observed that he was running a parallel business by plying taxis. There is no basis for finding that the deceased was a Government employee. We do not know as to on what basis the learned Single Judge has arrived at this factually incorrect conclusion, and made it the basis for awarding compensation.
The High Court further held that the ITRs for the years 200203, 200304 and 200405 showed that the average income of the deceased for these three years was Rs. 52,635 p.a. The ITR for the year 200607 revealed an income of Rs. 98,500 p.
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.