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

1982 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 13

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dharmadhikari, S.J. Deshpande, JJ
Hirjee Veerjee and Co (M/s.) v. Saroja Narayan Shetty and Others
Civil Appeal | Full Bench



For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shah, Tijoriwala
For the Respondents:Advocates for plaintiffs

The life insurance payout received due to death only represents an accelerated benefit, and only its value in terms of interest should be deducted from compensation, not the total amount.

Headnote:(A) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - The core issue involves whether compensation amount should consider the life insurance payout, which was received by the claimant after the deceased's death. The Division Bench's earlier ruling suggested such amounts should be deducted; however, the Full Bench questioned this premise. (Paras 1, 12, 28)

(B) Insurance Benefits - The essence of insurance payouts relates not to damages incurred due to the accident but rather to the acceleration of the deceased's estate benefits post-death. Courts have diverged in their opinions, but recent consensus leans towards viewing such payments as accelerated inheritances rather than repayable benefits. (Paras 13, 30)

(C) Deductions from Compensation - Only the interest value from the accelerated receipt of insurance funds should be factored in for deduction in compensation calculations, not the full insurance sum. This recognizes that while the estate benefit was received promptly, it does not represent an additional gain beyond what heirs would have inherited eventually. (Paras 29, 36)

(D) Final Decision - The court ruled that insurance payouts did not entirely negate compensation but only adjusted for the benefit of timely receipt, guiding future rulings and clarifying contradictions in previous judgments. Adjustments for premature receipt were guided by established principles around wrongful death claims. (Paras 44, 45)

1. This appeal by defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, awarding compensation of Rupees 1,49,400/- under the Fatal Accidents Act, has been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Dharmadhikari and S.J. Deshpande, JJ. as they felt that the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Jaikumar v. Mary Jerome D'Souza , AIR 1978 Bom 239 , in so far as it took the view that the amount received from Life Insurance Policy on the death of the deceased was liable to be deducted from the compensation to which the plaintiffs were entitled, required reconsideration.

2. Since the whole appeal has been referred to the Full Bench, it becomes necessary to briefly state the facts leading to the present appeal.

3. The original plaintiffs Nos.1 to 5 are the legal representatives of deceased Narayan Shetty. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of deceased Narayan. Plaintiff No.2, who was then a minor, is his son. Plaintiffs Nos.3 and 4 are his daughters and plaintiff No.5 is the mother of the deceased. It is not now in dispute that on 7th December, 1969 at about 10 a.m. when the deceased was driving his motor vehicle No. MRC 3011 and was proceeding from Thane on Agra Road towards Bhiwandi side, there was a collision with a motor lorry of the appellants which was driven by driver Damodar from the opposite direction. The motor car was heavily damaged. Narayan Shetty sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to these injuries on the same day at 1.30 p.m. in the Civil Hospital at Thane. Narayan Shetty was about 45 years of age at the time of his death. He had taken technical education in Germany in 1965 and in 1966 had started his own industry called Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., of which he was a Managing Director and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. In addition, he was earning commission on sales.

4. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, the plaintiffs claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as damages under different heads specified in Schedule A to the plaint, with which we are not concerned at this stage. Out of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased was estimated at Rs.2,30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were claimed on account of pain and suffering prior to the death and shortening the expectation of life.

5. The defendants, namely, the present appellant and defendant No.2 Messrs South India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bombay, contested the claim of the plaintiffs that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry of defendant No.1 and their case was that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and the appellant company in fact claimed to be entitled to Rs.5,199.41 as damages caused to their lorry by the car of the deceased. Defendant No.2, the Insurance Company pleaded that it was not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs in excess of Rs.20,000/- which was the statutory limit.

6. On evidence given before the trial Court it was found that the defendant No.1's driver Damodar had driven the lorry rashly and negligently and thereby he knocked the car which was driven by the deceased Narayan. The plea of contributory negligence of the deceased was negatived. While dealing with the question of determination of quantum of compensation, the trial Court found that if the deceased was alive, the net gain of the members of the family would have been Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per year. Holding that deceased Narayan would have led active earning life till 60 years and on the finding that the age of the deceased Narayan at the time of death was 45 years and that he was a healthy man with a robust constitution, the trial Court found that the deceased's family had lost the benefits of the financial contribution by the deceased for 15 years and the total loss was thus estimated at Rs.1,80,000/-. In so far as the claim under S.2 of the Fatal Accidents Ac

























































































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