LexBUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI versus NIDHAN SINGH @ KAPOOR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 768 A BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI ~ v. NIDHAN SINGH @ KAPOOR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2009 ets.) B JUL..Y 31, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Motor accident - 1 Resulting in one death, injuries to one and permanent c disability of one - Claim petitions - Grant of compensation by Tribunal - Compensation amount enhanced by High Court - On appeal, ·held: Order of compensation as regards the deceased sufficient and hence does not call for interference - Compensation to the claimants on account of injuries and D permanent disability determined without discussing materials on record, without analysing evidence and without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons - Hence, mater remitted to High Court. E In a motor accident, one person died and his wife and mother sustained injuries. Three petitions claiming compensation were filed. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal - granted compensation for a sum of Rs.4, 11,000/- to the appellant-wife on account of death of her husband, by F assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- p.m. and deducting 1/3rd therefrom. Wife of the deceased was further awarded sum of Rs.35,000/- for her own injuries. Mother of the deceased was awarded Rs. 85,0001- for her permanent disability. Appellants filed three separate appeals. High Court enhanced the compensation in G respect of the death of the deceased as also for the injuries suffered by the appellants viz. his wife and mother. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2009 and partly H 768 BUDHWANTI @ BUDHO RANI v. NIDHAN SINGH @ 769 · KAPOOR & ORS. allowil)Q Civil Appeal No.4958 of 2009 and remitting the A matters to ·High Court, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court while maintaining the quantum of income of the deceased at Rs.4500 per month, applied the multiplier of 15. The High Court 8 proceeded to apply the multiplicand and the multiplier with ref~rence to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal and the High Court, however, failed to take into consideration that the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to C the Act may not have any co-relationship with computation of the quantum of compensation on an application filed u/s. 166 thereof. (Para 13] [773-E-G] 1.2. The deceased apart from his mother and wife had three children, who were minors at the material time. 0 There i~ no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court as regards compensation paid owing to the death of the deceased as the amount of compensation paid was sufficient having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal as also the High Court. (Para E 13] [773-G-H; 774-A-B] 2.1. So far as that part of the appeal preferred by the wife of the deceased as regards compensation paid to her for her injuries and the appeal preferred by the mother F · of the deceased are concerned, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court considered the evidences of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. (Para 14] [774-B•C] 2.2. Why the amount claimed by the claimants G towards expenses for obtaining medical treatment had been rejected has not been stated. On what basis the compensation on other heads, viz., pain· and suffering expenses, special diet expenses, expenses on transportation, expenses on attendant, compensation for H 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A disfigurement and social discomfort, etc. have been granted is not known. Figures have been arrived at without discussing the materials on records, without analyzing the evidences and without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons therefore. Interest of justice shall be B met if the claim petitions filed by the wife and mother of the deceased with regard to the amount of compensation for their personal injuries are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matters afresh. [Para 15 and 16] [774-D-G] c CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2051 of D 2003. E Sarvesh Bisaria, S. Usha Reddy for the Appellant. AK. De, V.P. Tripathi, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Ashok K. Mahajan, Anil Nag for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Khairati Lal (deceased) and the appellants herein w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.