Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1795
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Smt. Rajashree & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri Mahaveer Kakaso Patil & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6813 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 20455 of 2018)
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Advocate, Mr. Animesh Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advocate, Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Awantika Manohar, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of The Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Section 5, in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and allowing the appeal to be considered on its merits.
Headnote:
Delay Condoned - Appeal against Order - The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Quantum of Compensation
Fact of the Case:
The appellants appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss their appeal due to a delay in filing. The deceased family member's accident and subsequent compensation were the subject of the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the appeal should be considered on its merits rather than remanded to the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was the quantum of compensation for the deceased family member's accident, considering his income from milk vending and agricultural activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court decided to enhance the compensation based on the deceased's income from milk vending and agricultural activities, considering the loss to the family due to his supervision of agricultural operations.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellants a total compensation of Rs. 10,49,944/- with interest at 6% per annum.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants are before this Court assailing the Order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A. No. 102770 of 2017.
4. It is noted that the High Court, at the outset, on considering the application filed under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, had refused to condone the delay of 257 days and has consequently, dismissed the appeal.
5. In a normal circumstance, considering the fact that in a first appeal, the evidence on record would receive reconsideration, it would have been appropriate to condone the delay as we are satisfied with the explanation and restore the appeal to the file of the High court.
6. However, in the present facts, it is noticed that the factual aspects relating to the accident having occurred on 06.01.2014 and the death of the earning family member of the appellants, is not in dispute, in as much as, the Insurance Company has satisfied the award, which had been passed by The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('MACT' for short).
7. In that circumstance, the only aspect which requires consideration in an appeal of the present nature, is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is in that light, we deem it fit to dispose of the appeal on its merit instead of remanding it to the High Court.
8. In so far as the quantum of compensation, from the records it is seen that the claimants had contended that the deceased husband of the first claimant (wife), who was the father/ son of the other claimants, was doing milk vending business and had also agricultural land. In so far as the milk vending business is concerned, certificate issued by the Sri. Laxminarayan Milk Producers Association, Hunnaragi has been produced by the appellants which affirms that the deceased was the member of the said Association and was into the business of supplying milk. It is on that basis, the MACT had taken the income of deceased at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month and arrived at the compensation.
9. While rejecting the claim, reckon the income for compensation also on the ground that the deceased was an agriculturist, the MACT had reasoned that the agricultural properties, on which the deceased was growing crops and was earning livelihood, are now available to his family members and therefore, no compensation is payable in that regard as there is no loss of income.
10. However, on that aspect, what is to be noted is that even if the property is available, the effort of supervising the agricultural operations by the deceased as the head of family in rural set up is a loss to the family and as such, a marginal loss in any event would occur to the family.
11. Therefore, keeping in view these aspects, it would be appropriate to reckon the monthly income of the decased at Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Only) per month. Since the deceased was aged 45 years, he would be entitled to the future prospects at 25%, which is in a sum of Rs. 1,750/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) per month. Therefore, the total monthly income is to be reckoned at Rs. 8,750/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only). A sum of Rs. 2917/-(Rupees Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen Only) is deducted at one-third, towards personal expenses of the deceased and if the multiplier of 14' is applied to the remainder, the loss of dependency would work out to a sum of Rs. 9,79,944/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Four Only).
12. In addition, the appellants would be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) on the conventional heads.
13. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 10,49,944/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Four Only) with interest at 6% per annum, as against the sum awarded by the MACT.
14. The enhanced portion of the amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before
