B. SANGEETHA & ANR. versus OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 05-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
B. SANGEETHA & ANR.
v.
OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2020)
JUNE 05, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
HEMANT GUPTA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Compensation:
Motor Accident – claim for compensation – Tribunal taking
the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 9000/- p.m. awarded
compensation of Rs. 20,11,000/- – High Court in appeal enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 33,07,000/-, by taking the monthly income
of deceased as Rs. 15000/- p.m.– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
The salary certificate of the deceased indicated that his monthly
salary was Rs. 23,419/- p.m.– Therefore, compensation awarded
by High Court is enhanced to Rs. 45,29,000/-, with interest at 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition until payment – Appeal
allowed – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 13 SCR 100
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2511
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2017 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2667/2015.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Smarhar Singh, Ashutosh Thakur, A. K. Soni, Rajeev
Maheshwaranand Roy, P. Srinivasan, Adv. for the Respondents.
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 255
255
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 27 June
2017 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The High Court in an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal1, enhanced the compensation payable to the appellants
from Rs 20,11,000 to Rs 33,07,000. The amount was directed to be
apportioned between the appellants, who are the wife and mother of
the deceased. The liability has been fastened jointly and severally on
the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer.
3. The issue in the present appeal pertains only to the quantum
of compensation.
4. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the monthly salary
of the deceased proximate to the date of the accident (which took place
on 21 June 2012) was Rs 9,000.The High Court determined the income
at Rs 15,000 per month. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits
that in the face of ample evidence produced by the appellants, the High
Court was not justified in discarding the salary certificate for May 2012.
5. The deceased was a BSc in computers and was employed in
a private company. The spouse of the deceased, who deposed in support
of the claim for compensation, produced the salary certificates of the
deceased and bank statements.  The High Court has adverted to the
salary certificates and the bank statements, which were relied upon by
the appellants, in the course of its judgment.  Exhibit P-8, which was a
salary certificate for the month of May 2012 indicated that the salary
of the deceased was Rs 23,419.  However, the High Court held that
the salary, as reflected in the said certificate, should not be accepted
having regard to the salary certificates for the anterior period which
had also been produced on the record, which showed a lower salary.
6. The Tribunal held that though the deceased had been employed
with the Sauter Race Technologies Private Limited, the salary certificate
that was produced was of Carrier Race Technologies Limited. This
finding has been stressed upon by the learned counsel appearing on
1 “Tribunal”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
behalf of the insurer. On this aspect of the matter, the cross-examination
of the claimant indicates that no effort was made by the insurer to
discredit the salary certificate which was produced by the spouse of
the deceased.  In the course of her deposition, she explained that Carrier
Race Technologies Limited was a sister concern.  Salary certificates
and bank statements were produced.
7. Since the bank statements and the certificates were duly
proved and marked, there was no reason or justification for discarding
the salary certificate for the month of May 2012, which indicates that
the net pay of the deceased was Rs 23,419. This is for the period
proximate to the accident. The compensation awarded by the High Court
must hence be enhanced in accordance with the legal principles which
emerge from the decisions of this court. The compensation payable to
the appellants is recomputed as follows:
(i) Annual Income computed at the rate of
Rs

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.