Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1750
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Rajani and Others - Appellants
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Respondents and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No 6194 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 28559 of 2019), Civil Appeal No 6195 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 28715 of 2019)
Decided on : 05-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Shubham Saurav, Adv., Ms. Srishti Prakash, Adv., Mr. Binam Shukla, Adv., Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR, Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Mr. Ram Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the income computed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should not be reduced by the High Court unless it is found to be disproportionate or arbitrary, especially in cases where documentary evidence may not be available to prove the quantum of earnings of the deceased.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - 1[“MACT”] - Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd, (2014) 2 SCC 735
Fact of the Case:
The High Court reduced the income computed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for two separate cases involving accidents resulting in the death of a pineapple cultivator and a carpenter. The High Court relied on previous court decisions to reduce the income computed by the MACT.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the income adopted by the MACT for the deceased individuals was not disproportionate or arbitrary, and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the MACT's award by reducing the quantum of income of the deceased.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the income computed by the MACT for the deceased individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the quantum of earnings of a self-cultivating agriculturist or a self-skilled worker, a robust view has to be taken on the quantum of earnings. The court also emphasized that the income adopted by the MACT was not disproportionate or arbitrary.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the total quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT, and ordered the balance due to be paid over within a period of one month together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
ORDER :
Civil Appeal No 6194 of 2022 @ SLP (C) No 28559 of 2019
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Kerala allowed a First Appeal against a judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal1[“MACT”] dated 30 January 2017. The MACT awarded an amount of Rs 26,75,000 taking into account the base income of the deceased as Rs 12,000 per month. The High Court reduced the income computed from Rs 12,000 to Rs 10,000. In doing so, the High Court relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd, (2014) 2 SCC 735, where this Court had reckoned the monthly income in those cases at Rs 4,500 and Rs 6,500 per month in the context of accidents which took place in 2004 and 2008 respectively.
3. In the present case, the deceased was a pineapple cultivator. The accident took place on 1 October 2015. In such matters, a robust view has to be taken of the quantum of earnings since documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the quantum of earnings of a self-cultivating agriculturist. In our view, the income which was adopted by the MACT of Rs 12,000 per month cannot be regarded as disproportionate or arbitrary. Hence, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the award by reducing the quantum of income of the deceased from Rs 12,000 to Rs 10,000 per month.
4. Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the view that the total quantum of compensation of Rs 26,75,000 should be restored and we order accordingly do so in view of the facts which are noted above.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
6. The balance that is due and payable to the appellants shall be paid over within a period of one month together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Civil Appeal No 6195 of 2022 @ SLP (C) No 28715 of 2019
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Kerala allowed a First Appeal against a judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 11 November 2016. The MACT awarded an amount of Rs 24,59,000 taking into account the base income of the deceased as Rs 15,000 per month. The High Court reduced the income computed from Rs 15,000 to Rs 10,000. In doing so, the High Court relied upon the decisions in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Syed Sadiq vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd, (2014) 2 SCC 735, where this Court has reckoned the monthly income in those cases at Rs 4,500 and Rs 6,500 per month in the context of accidents which took place in 2004 and 2008 respectively.
3. In the present case, the deceased was a carpenter. The accident took place on 3 May 2015. In such matters, a robust view has to be taken on the quantum of earnings since documentary evidence may not be available to specifically prove the quantum of earnings of a self-skilled worker. The income which was adopted by the MACT of Rs 15,000 per month cannot be regarded as disproportionate or arbitrary. Hence, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the award by reducing the quantum of earnings of the deceased from Rs 15,000 to Rs 10,000 per month.
4. Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the view that the total quantum of compensation of Rs 24,59,000 should be restored and we order accordingly in view of the facts which are noted above.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
6. The balance that is due and payable to the appellant shall be paid over within a period of one month together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
