2021 Supreme(SC) 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED –APPELLANT
VERSUS
KAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH KAHLON (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NARINDER KAHLON GOSAKAN AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4800 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO.2873 OF 2021)
DECIDED ON : 16-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In case of death, legal representatives of deceased can pursue claim – Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than conventional definition.
(2) In assessing, what has been described as a ‘Just Compensation’ under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind.
(3) Income which a person derives compositely forms part of expenditure on himself, his family and savings go to estate.
(4) Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfils policy of legislation favourable to those in whose interest Act has been passed.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166(1)(a) – Injury in accident – Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only with 9% interest awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Claimant (Since deceased) suffered 100 per cent permanent motor system disability with operative scar on right-side neck, right ankle, healed scar on left side forehead frontal region and parietal region and he was unable to lift all four limbs which were vested with sensory loss present in certain places classified as quadriplegic orthopedically – Claimant was a Law Graduate with a Diploma in Personal Management and Labour Welfare from Punjab University – Because of injuries, he found it difficult and inconvenient to continue with his job as Deputy General Manager and resigned prematurely at age of 53 years – Tribunal in a very cursory and cryptic manner awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 9% interest – High Court has enhanced compensation to Rs.37,81,234/- by taking into account his annual salary with future prospect applying multiplier of 11 including pain and suffering, attendant’s charges – Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation – In case of death, legal representatives of deceased can pursue claim – Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than conventional definition – If legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, no reason why legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166 – Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to claimant and which may not be cause of death – Such claims of personal injuries would abate with death of injured – Appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases – This obligation cannot be evaded behind defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of loss caused to estate of deceased because of injuries – Income which a person derives compositely forms part of expenditure on himself, his family and savings go to estate – Unforeseen expenses have to be met from estate causing pecuniary loss to estate. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166(1)(a) – Injury in accident – Award of just compensation – Injuries suffered by deceased in accident required prolonged hospitalization for six months – Extent of disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100% – Extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as 75% on 08.08.2002 – Injured was possessing professional qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a Diploma in Personnel Management – He may have had to suffer some handicap in also practising before labour court, but cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his capacity for rendering advisory and other work coupled with movement on a wheel chair with aid of an attendant could still facilitate a reduced earning capacity – It cannot be held that injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to deplete his estate – In assessing, what has been described as a ‘Just Compensation’ under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind – Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order – While claim for personal injuries may not have survived after death of injured unrelated to accident or injuries, during pendency of appeal, but claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by legal representatives of deceased in appeal – Loss of income to injured in facts of present case has to be assessed at 75% – Loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to estate but for sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted estate of injured, subsequently deceased – Compensation under head pain and suffering being personal injuries held to be unsustainable and disallowed – High Court has not awarded anything towards medical expenses despite hospitalisation for six months being an admitted fact – Sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards medical expenses – Appellant directed to pay to respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks Rs.28,42,175/- along with 9% interest. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Social Welfare Legislations – Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfils policy of legislation favourable to those in whose interest Act has been passed – Judicial discipline demanded that words of a remedial statutes be construed so far as they reasonably admit so as to secure that relief contemplated by statute and it shall not be denied to class intended to be relieved. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:

Original claimant was severely injured in a motor accident on 02.05.1999. He filed a claim for compensation under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 02.11.2006 awarded him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only with 9% interest. Dissatisfied, original claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court. Unfortunately, he was deceased on 06.11.2015 during pendency of the appeal, not attributed to the injuries suffered in accident. The daughter of the claimant, who was an unmarried girl aged 21 years at the time of the accident, was substituted in the appeal. The High Court substantially enhanced the compensation.

Findings of Court:

Appellant is therefore directed to pay to respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks Rs.28,42,175/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realisation.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.