SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Sadhana Tomar And Others – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kushwaha And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6986 of 2023)
Decided on : 24-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the accident and compensation claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. assessment of income and multiplier controversy. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on dependency and compensation rationale. (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final decision on compensation calculations. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court
1 year 10 months 3 years 10 months 1 year 10 months
Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court
1. Leave Granted
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th September 2022, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.5231 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 9th October 2018 in Claim Case No.680/2016 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.).
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that : on 25th September 2016, the deceased, namely Dheeraj Singh Tomar, aged 24 years, was travelling in an Auto bearing registration No. MP 30-R-0582 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") along with other passengers. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving rashly and negligently, overturned the offending vehicle at Gohad Chauraha Road near Gautum Nagar, Bajrang Washing Centre at Gwalior, due to which the deceased died on the spot and the other passengers suffered injuries.
4. The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 28,50,000/-, submitting therein that the deceased was earning up to Rs.35,000/- per month, by doing wholesale business of fruit selling to meet the daily expenses of the family.
5. The Tribunal by its Order dated 9th October 2018, observed that Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as the driver, at the time of accident, was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,77,200/- along with simple interest @ 7% p.a. to appellant No.1 to 3 herein, by taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and fixing the future prospects at 40 per cent. A deduction of 1/3rd amount for personal expenses was made, and Appellant Nos.4 and 5, i.e., his father and younger sister were not considered as dependents of the deceased.
6. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the High Court. The main ground of challenge was that the Tribunal had incorrectly determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, whereas it should have been Rs.35,000/- per month; and also, that the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd amount from the annual income of the deceased towards personal expenses, whereas since there are five claimant-appellants, the deduction for personal expenses ought to have been by 1/4th.
7. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment, affirmed the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the amount of compensation awarded and disposed of the same by holding that the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation in accordance with the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297].
8. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before us. The points raised by the appellants are that the High Court incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, and the appropriate multiplier was also not applied.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by
N. Jayasree vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712]
Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297]
Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]
The court established that compensation for loss of dependency must consider the deceased's potential income and appropriate deductions based on the number of dependents, affirming a broader interpre....
Major married and earning sons of a deceased can claim compensation irrespective of dependency status, affirming their legal right as representatives.
Income Tax Returns are essential statutory documents for determining compensation in motor accident claims, overriding previous assessments.
The main legal point established is the entitlement of legal representatives to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, irrespective of dependency.
The court established that oral evidence is crucial for determining income in compensation claims, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of disability.
Death in motor accident – Just compensation – Even in absence of definite proof of income, social status of deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector....
(1) A ‘legal representative’ may also include any person who intermeddles with estate of deceased – Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir – Legal heirs are persons who are entitled....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.