Back
1998(7) Supreme 404
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
K. Venkataswamy & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1904 of 1989
Decided on 18-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Gopal Jain, (Ms. Nandini Gore) Advocate for Ms. M. Karanjawala, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, M. Sharda, (R.S. Hegde) Advocate for S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate/Advocates.
(ii) Fatal Accident Act, 1855-Section 1A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 110-B and 92-A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 168(1)-Whether the compensation computed under 1939 Act, the life Insurance amount received by the claimants occasioned by the death of the deceased, is deductible from it or not? (It is not deductible).
Held : As we have observed the whole scheme of the Act, in relation to the payment of compensation to the claimant, is a beneficial legislation, the intention of the legislature is made more clear by the change of language from what was in Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of 1939 Act. This is also visible through the provision of Section 168(1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of 1939 Act which fixes the liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault. It provides where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident in spite of no fault of the owner of the vehicle, an amount of compensation fixed therein is payable to claimant by such owner of the vehicle. Section 92-B ensures that the claim for compensation under Section 92-A is in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect whereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. This clearly indicates the intention of the legislature which is conferring larger benefit to the claimant. Interpretation of such beneficial legislation is also well settled. Whenever there be two possible interpretations in such statute then the one which subserves the object of legislation, viz., benefit to the subject should be accepted. In the present case, two interpretations have given of this statute, evidenced by two distinct sets of decisions of the various High Courts. We have no hesitation to conclude that the set of decisions, which applied the principle of no deduction of the life insurance amount should be accepted and the other set, which interpreted to deduct, is to be rejected. For all these considerations, we have no hesitation to hold that such High Courts were wrong in deducting the amount paid or payable under the life insurance by giving restricted meaning to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act basing mostly on the language of English statutes and not taking into consideration the changed language and intends of the legislature under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 9th September, 1985 and restore the judgment of the tribunal dated 29th September, 1980 and hold that the amount received by the claimant on the life insurance of the deceased is not deductible from the compensation computed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The concerned respondent shall make the payment accordingly, if not already paid in terms thereof. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Cost on parties. (Paras 38, 39, 40)
Key Points: - The life insurance money of the deceased is not to be deducted from the claimants’ compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (!) . - The question of whether life insurance money is deductible from compensation was not pressed in the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, but an appeal to the Supreme Court lies against such dismissal [1000032260004][1000032260005]. - The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, have different language, with Section 110-B of the 1939 Act empowering the Tribunal to determine compensation that appears "just," enlarging the scope of compensation computation [1000032260012][1000032260026][1000032260029]. - English courts' interpretations of deductibility of insurance policies from compensation evolved over time, with legislation eventually settling that life insurance policies are not deductible [1000032260010]. - The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court's decision in Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni & Ors. v. Mary Jerome D’souza & Ors., which allowed deduction of life insurance, was based on a restrictive interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act and English statutes, not considering the changed language and intent of the Indian legislature [1000032260037]. - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is considered beneficial legislation, and interpretations that subserve the object of benefiting the claimant should be accepted [1000032260037]. - The principle of balancing loss and gain under common law, as applied in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is not directly applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, due to the wider discretion granted to the Tribunal under Section 110-B [1000032260029]. - Pecuniary advantages received by claimants must have a nexus to the accidental death for which compensation is computed under the Motor Vehicles Act; amounts receivable irrespective of accidental death, such as life insurance premiums paid by the deceased, are not deductible [1000032260033][1000032260035]. - The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, including provisions for compulsory insurance and insurer's liability, indicates a legislative intent to confer greater benefits on claimants [1000032260030][1000032260037]. - The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the tribunal was restored, holding that life insurance amounts are not deductible [1000032260038].
Judgment
Misra, J.-The question raised in this appeal is of great importance on which the High Courts in India are divided. Importance of this question is underlined and revealing since 19th century where there is full debate in the English Courts having divergent views leading to legislation and amendments to set at rest this controversy. So far as our country is concerned, as aforesaid, we have divergent views of the various High Courts, but so far this Court, it has not dwelled this question in depth, except passing references in a few cases to which we shell be referring later.
2. The question is, whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to be deducted from the claimants compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? The minimum matrix of the facts to appreciate the controversy is stated hereunder:
3. The husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellants Nos. 2 to 6, was travelling in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus from Rathare Badruk to Pune on 12th April, 1973 at about 4.00 P.M. when this bus passed the village Umbraj and came near village Kotri near milestone No. 89/4, Karnataka State Transport bus was seen coming from the opposite direction, i.e., from Satara side towards Kolhapur. The drivers of the two buses were not able to control their buses resulting into collision between the two, seriously injuring the deceased clement Rebello and Mr. Vincy John Pereira, in which Mr. Rebello received multiple fractures and died on the spot. The appellants filed a Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 1975 against the aforesaid two State Road Transport Corporations. It was avered in the plaint that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was the sole bread winner of the family. He was a well known boat builder and businessman of the Bassein. He was doing business in partnership under the name and style of Marine Engineering Works. He was a person of great skill and hard worker. He was a person of robust health and sober habits. His income from the business and other activities was about Rs. 40,000 per annum. He was assessed for an income of about Rs. 43,000/- by the Income Tax Authorities for the Assessment Year 1971-72. Being the sole bread winner, be used to provide the family with the support of Rs. 25,000/- per year. The claim made by the appellants for damages/compensation under the various admissible heads of damages was for Rs. 4 lacs. The claim of the appellants was allowed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, holding that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of respondent No. 2, namely, Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. It was also held that the deceased had supported his family with an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per annum. It was found that as the deceased was of 40 years old at the time of his death and his father had lived upto the age of 85 years, the normal longevity of his life would have been 25 years from the date of death, but since the claimants had claimed a compensation only taking a period of 20 years, the Trial Court held that the appellants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- by way of pecuniary loss and Rs. 10,000/- on account of paid and suffering, in total Rs. 3,90,000/-. However, in view of the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni & Ors. v. Mary Jerome D’souza & Ors.1, the Trial Court deducted the amount of life insurance received by the appellants to the tune of Rs. 3,15,067.95p from the aforesaid compensation calculated and held that only the balance amount of Rs. 74,939.05p with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum is payable by the respondent No. 2 to the claimants.
4. Through the witness Shashikant Dattatraya Kale, Exhibit 67, who was serving in LIC at Bombay, it was elicited that the deceased clement had insured his life under the said policy. The claimants were entitled to get an amount of Rs. 4,40,193.65p, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,52,1
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
