Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
CHANDRA & ORS. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5635 OF 2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C)NO. 31444 OF 2017)
DECIDED ON : 09-09-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in road accident – Reduced compensation of Rs.8,20,000/- awarded by High Court – Appellant was employed in a job in Saudi Arabia – Appellants was getting salary of 1000 Riyals (Rs.15,000/-) per month – Deceased was aged 33 years – He was a graduate – He was also qualified in a course in computer – Appellants should be granted increase by 40 per cent having regard to admitted age of deceased being below 40 years on the basis of salary – Income of deceased fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month, applying 40 per cent increase to basic salary, income is fixed at Rs.21,000/- per month – Since deceased was a bachelor, deduction of ½ from the same has to be made, and resultantly, monthly income will be Rs.10,500/- – Amount so fixed must suffer tax which is stated to be 10 per cent – Impugned judgment of High Court modified substituting sum of Rs.20 lakhs as amount of compensation which will be paid with 9% interest per annum from date of filing of petition till realisation. (Paras 10 to 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of High Court by which allowing the appeal filed by first respondent-insurer, the compensation which was awarded to the appellants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the sum of Rs.30,81,577/- was reduced to Rs.8,20,000/-.
Findings of Court:
As far as the question relating to multiplier goes, there is hardly any dispute that it is the multiplier which is relevant to the deceased, which shall apply.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of the High Court by which allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent-insurer, the compensation which was awarded to the appellants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’ for brevity) in the sum of Rs.30,81,577/- was reduced to Rs.8,20,000/-.
3. The case of the appellants was based on the death of one J. Jeyachandran in an accident which took place on 28.07.2012. After finding liability as claimed by the appellants, MACT arrived at a sum of Rs.30,81,577/-. The reasoning of the MACT was that the appellant was employed in a job in Saudi Arabia where he was earning 3,500 Riyals. MACT further took the multiplier at 16. It is this reasoning which did not appeal to the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court while allowing the appeal filed by the insurer, reasoned as follows:
4. The High Court found that it may not be safe to arrive at the income of the deceased on the basis of the monthly salary of 3,500 Riyals projected by the appellants. Instead, the High Court substituted the income of the deceased with the sum of Rs.15,000/-per month. Secondly, the High Court also took the view that the age of the parents of the deceased viz., appellants Nos. 1 and 2 being 65 and 61, the average age of the first and the second appellants was taken, which was fixed as 63 years. On the said basis, the multiplier was reduced from 16 to 7. This essentially constituted the reasoning on the basis of which, the amount awarded by MACT was reduced to the amount of Rs.8 and odd lakhs.
5. We have heard Shri G. Balaji, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants, and also Shri Rajesh Kumra Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the first respondent-insurer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the High Court erred in interfering with the Award passed by MACT, insofar as, it modified the income to Rs.15,000/-per month. He would next contend that the multiplier should be that of the deceased which was correctly fixed at 16 by the MACT. It is further contended that the High Court has also erred in not granting future prospects which is to be given in terms of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the High Court is justified on the material placed before it, in reducing the monthly income to Rs.15,000/-. In this regard, he would point out that the deceased was not having any permanent job. He was working abroad on visa and visa was about to expire.
7. The appellants have also produced certain additional documents before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the appointment order dated 22.10.2011 issued in favour of the deceased, wherein it is shown that, the appellant would be entitled to basic salary of 1,000 Riyals. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to certificate which is seen dated 27.08.2012. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that this certificate was, in fact, relied upon by the MACT also.
8. We must notice that the accident took place on 28.07.2012. The appointment order dated 22.10.2011 is in close proximity to the date of accident. The basic salary is shown as 1,000 Riyals. There is no mention of any other allowance as such therein. As far as the certificate dated 27.08.2012 is concerned, no doubt, therein, it is declared that the last salary of the deceased was 3,500 Saudi Riyals. However, we may take note of the other contents of the
certificate and it reads as follows:
9. We would think that it may not be safe to place reliance on the certification done about the salary at 3,500 Riyals. Having regard to the facts which we have noticed which i
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
