SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1881

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Rupali Kailas Mamode & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6678 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 6814 of 2021)
Decided On : 15-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kailas U. More, Advocate, Mrs. Nirmala D. Borade, Advocate, Mr. Amit Garg, Advocate, Simanta Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, Mr. Dhiraj K. Sammi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reduction of compensation by the High Court was not justified, and the future prospects percentage for loss of dependency was modified to 40% of income.

Headnote:

Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Rs. 19,88,476/- - MACT, High Court - Income-tax returns, Loss of dependency - Future prospects at 40% - Rs. 29,63,931/-

Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the High Court in a motor accident claims case. The deceased, an architect doing contract work, died in an accident. The MACT awarded Rs. 31,15,335/-, which was reduced by the High Court to Rs. 19,88,476/-.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the High Court's reduction of compensation was not justified, considering the deceased's increasing income and loss of dependency. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the MACT's award with a modification relating to future prospects at 40% of income, resulting in a total compensation of Rs. 29,63,931/-.

Issues: Enhancement of compensation, Justification of High Court's reduction, Assessment of loss of dependency, Future prospects percentage

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the High Court's reduction of compensation was not justified, considering the deceased's increasing income and loss of dependency. The Court also modified the future prospects percentage to 40% of income.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the total compensation was set at Rs. 29,63,931/- with interest at 6% from the date of the claim petition.

ORDER

Leave granted.

1. The appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation as against the sum awarded by the High Court. The High Court had reduced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (For short'MACT') and ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 19,88,476/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. The husband of the appellant No.1 died in the accident which occurred on 31.07.2006. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was undertaking the work as a contractor though he was an architect. The MACT having taken into consideration the evidence available on record had reckoned the income based on the income-tax return for the years 20062007 wherein it was indicated that the income was s.1,67,582/-. Having taken into consideration the other parameters the MACT awarded a sum of Rs.31,15,335/-.

3. The High Court while reducing the compensation has arrived at the conclusion that the income as indicated in the last returns would not be justified and the average of three years is taken and therefore has reduced the compensation. Though learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company seeks to contend that the High Court having taken note of the decisions rendered by this Court has arrived at such conclusion, we are of the opinion that in the present facts of the case, in any event such conclusion by the High Court was not justified. This is for the reason that as noted the deceased was an architect and he was doing contract work, the income-tax returns which he had filed from the period 20042005 onwards indicated that there was a steep increase in his income as compared to a sum of Rs.89,964/- declared in the year 2004-2005 and that benefit cannot be denied. If this aspect of the matter is kept in perspective, the income was bound to increase many folds if he had survived and such income which is denied to the family is the loss of dependency which was required to be determined.

4. If above stated aspect of the matter is kept in view, we need not advert to any other aspect of the matter inasmuch as the MACT has rightly assessed the compensation that had been reduced by the High Court without justification.

5. However at this point one aspect of the matter which requires to be corrected in the award is that the MACT on reckoning the income based on the income-tax returns for the year 2006-2007 had added the future prospects at 50%. In fact, it should have been at 40%. Therefore, we set aside the judgment dated 14.01.2019 passed by the High Court and restore the award dated 12.10.2009 passed by the MACT with modification relating to future prospects at 40% of income. On that basis the loss of dependency works out to Rs.28,15,376/-. The amount towards conventional heads shall be Rs.70,000/- and also the medical charges incurred before death. The total compensation shall be Rs.29,63,931/- with interest @ 6% from the date of claim petition. The difference amount shall be deposited in six weeks and on deposit the same be disbursed to the appellants.

6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top