Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 405
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda
Civil Appeal No. 7368 of 2013
MINU ROUT & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 02.09.2013
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 166 — Claim for compensation — Head-on-collision between the car and the truck coming from the opposite direction — Deceased aged 35 years — Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs. 3,84,000/- fixing the monthly salary at Rs. 3,000/- and deducting 1/3 for personal expenses — Also, claimants, found to be entitled to 50% of amount of compensation assessed deducting 50% on account of contributory negligence of deceased in the accident — High Court upheld the award of the Tribunal on appeal by claimants — Apex Court found deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence erroneous and fixed the salary of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and added 30% as future prospects of the deceased to his monthly salary — On deducting 1/3 as personal expenses of the deceased applied multiplier of 16, and added Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads — Thus, determined total compensation at Rs. 10,48,400/- with interest @ 9%. (Paras 5, 9, 10 to 14)
eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 166 & izfrdj nkok & foijhr fn’kk ls vkrs gq, dkj o Vªd ds chp fHkMar & e`rd dh vk;q 35 o”kZ Fkh & vf/kdj.k }kjk #- 3]84]000@& dk izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr fd;k x;k & ekfld vk; dks #- 3]000@& fLFkj dj 1@3 futh [kpZ ds fy, de fd;k x;k & vkSj nkokdrkZ dks 50 % izfrdj dk gdnkj ik;k x;k] e`rd dh nq?kZVuk esa vfHknk;h mis{kk ds dkj.k 50 % dh dVkSrh djh xbZ & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk nkokdrkZ dh vihy ij vf/kdj.k ds vkns’k dks v{kq..k j[kk & mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHknk;h mis{kk ds dkj.k 50 % dh dVkSrh =qfViw.kZ ik;h xbZ] e`rd dh ekfld vk; dks #- 6]000@& ij fLFkj fd;k x;k o 30 % mlds Hkfo”;dky ds fy, tksM+s x, & 1@3 e`rd ds futh [kpZ ds fy, dkV dj] 16 dk xq.kd yxk;k x;k o #- 50]000@& ijEijkxr ‘kh”kks± esa tksM+s x, & bl izdkj #- 10]48]400@& dk dqy izfrdj 9 % C;kt nj ij fuèkkZfjr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 5] 9] 10 ls 14½
V. Gopala Gowda, J. — Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants who were claimants before the Additional District Judge-cum-4th MACT, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC case No.6 of 2005, questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 27.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in MACA No. 594 of 2010, wherein it has affirmed the judgment and award of the Tribunal holding that the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till actual payment, is legal and valid and the same is not vitiated either on account of impropriety or illegality. The correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal urging certain relevant facts and grounds.
3. Brief facts of the case are mentioned hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the case and to examine whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation claimed by them in this civil appeal. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased Susil Kumar Rout and the second appellant is the son of the deceased (minor at the time of the accident). On account of a head on collision between the car of the deceased bearing registration No. OR 09 C6463 and a truck bearing registration No. OR 09 C 7165 on National Highway 5 near Uraili Chhaka on 08.11.2004, the deceased sustained injuries and was declared brought dead at Jajpur Hospital. It is the case of the appellants that the road was wide and spacious and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. It is claimed by the appellants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was having good health and was earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month which was mostly contributed to the appellants for their livelihood.
4. During the time of hearing, the owner of the truck was arrayed as a party and was served with notice but he remained absent and did not contest the proceedings. Respondent No. 1, the driver also did not file any counter statement despite notice being served on him and he was set ex-parte. Respondent No.2, the New India Assurance Company filed its statement of counter opposing the claim of the appellants taking the plea that the claim petition is not maintainable and the claim is barred by limitation. The averments regarding the age and income of the deceased were denied, and so also, the averments regarding the manner in which the accident occurred as described in the claim petition. It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition regarding the manner in which the accident took place are false and fabricated. They have claimed that the accident was not due to sole negligence of the driver of the offending truck, by placing strong reliance upon the charge-sheet filed by the Dharmasala police, who seized both the vehicles. Therefore, it is stated that both the drivers of the car and the truck were responsible for causing accident amounting to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout. The accident occurred on account of head on collision between the two vehicles. Due to the death of the deceased- husband of the first appellant, the charge-sheet submitted against him was deleted.
5. Four issues were framed by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and the case went for trial on behalf of the appellants. The first appellant was examined as PW-1. In support of their claim, she produced and marked the documents namely, Exh.1 charge-sheet filed in GR 114 of 2004 before the S.D.J.M., Exh.2 three seizure lists, Exh.3 Zimanama, Exh. 4 inquest report, Exh.5 post mortem examination report and Exh.6 the copy of driving licence of the deceased. Apart from her, three other eye witnesses were examined, and they supported the claim of the appellants. None were examined on behalf of the Insurance Company to prove its case
