KISHAN GOPAL & ANR. versus LALA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 26-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 793 
KISHAN GOPAL & ANR. 
A 
V. 
LALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7137 of 2013) 
AUGUST 26, 2013 
B 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 140, 166 and 163A - Fatal 
accident - Claim for compensation - By the parents of the 
deceased (a 10 year old boy) - Courts below denied C 
compensation - On appeal, held: The claimants are entitled 
to award of just and reasonable compensation -
Compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded with interest at the 
rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. 
D 
Appellants' 10 years old son died in an accident, 
while he was travelling in a trolley of a tractor, driven by 
respondent No.1. Criminal proceedings were initiated in 
this regard against the driver and the owner (respondent 
No.2) of the offending vehicle. The appellants filed claim 
E 
petition u/s. 140 r/w. s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 
claiming compensation of Rs.15,63,000/-. In the claims 
proceedings, the driver and owner of the offending 
vehicle were placed ex-parte, while the insurance 
company (respondent No.3) contested the petition. 
Claims Tribunal held that the appellants did not succeed 
F 
in proving that the deceased boy died because of falling 
from the tractor-trolley driven rashly and negligently by 
the driver and hence the appellants were not entitled to 
any compensation. High Court concurred with the order 
of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Hence the 
G 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
793 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal should have considered 
both oral and documentary evidence and appreciated the 
same in the proper perspective and recorded the finding 
on the contentious issues in the affirmative. But it has 
recorded the finding in the negative on the issues by 
B adverting to certain statements of evidence of AW-1 and 
referring to certain alleged discrepancies in the FIR 
without appreciating entire evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 
on record properly and also not assigned valid reasons 
in not accepting their testimony. The registration of FIR 
c and fiiing of the charge-sheet against the driver and 
owner of the offending vehicle are not in dispute, 
therefore, the Tribunal had no option but to accept the 
entire evidence on record and to record the finding on 
the contentious issues in favour of the appellants. [Para 
D 16] [806-G-H; 807-A-B, C-D] 
1.2. Though the High Court has got power to re-
appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record, it has 
declined to do so and mechanically endorsed the 
findings of fact on contentious issues after referring to 
E certain stray sentences from the evidence of AW-1 and 
the FIR and it has erroneously held that there is a 
contradiction between the FIR, the claim petition and the 
evidence of the appellants. The approach of the High 
Court to the claim of the appellants is very casual as it 
F did not advert to the oral and documentary evidence 
placed on record on behalf of the appellants, particularly, 
in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the 
Insurance Company, hence the same is liable to be set 
aside. [Para 17] [808-D-G] 
G 
H 
1.3. The appellants are entitled to award of just and 
reasonable compensation, as they have lost their 
affectionate 10 year old son. 
The deceased was 
assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation 
which is an undisputed fact. Had the deceased boy been 
KISHAN GOPAL & ANR. v. LALA & ORS. 
795 
alive, would have contributed substantially to the family 
A 
of the appellants by working hard. Therefore, it would be 
just and reasonable to take his notional income at 
Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the 
parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, 
at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 can be applied 
to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 
50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love 
and affection, funeral expenses, last rites. Thus, the said 
amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation 
B 
to be awarded in favour of the appellants. The said 
C 
amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., for the 
reason that the Insurance Company has been contesting 
the claim of the appellants from 1992-2013 without 
settling their legitimate claim for nearly about 21 years. If 
the Insurance Company had awarded and paid just and 
reasonable compensation to the appellants, the same 
D 
could have been either in

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