MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC versus SUGUNA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 549 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC 
v. 
SUGUNA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
A 
!3 
. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s.166- Death of 24 year old 
person in motor accident - Claim for compensation - Claim C 
that deceased was getting salary of Rs.2,5001- p.m. - No 
evidence to substantiate the claim - MACT fixed the notional 
income of deceased at Rs.1,5001- p.m. and awarded Rs.1.83 
lacs as compensation - On appeal, High Court fixed the 
income of deceased at Rs.2,5001- per month and awarded D 
compensation of Rs.4.05 lacs - Held: High Court did not 
indicate any reason to fix the income at Rs.2,5001- p.m. 
though it deducted one-third for personal expenses - In the 
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, amount of 
compensation fixed at Rs. 3 lacs to be paid with interest at the 
E 
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 
Pursuant to death of a 24 year old person in a motor 
accident, his dependants filed claim petition under s.166 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident took place 
F 
in 1998. The appellant insurance company denied its 
liability on the ground that the accident occurred because 
of negligence on part of the deceased. The Claims 
Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at 
Rs.1,5001- per month and on that basis awarded a sum 
of Rs.1,83,500/- as compensation alongwith 6% interest G 
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition. Questioning 
the quantum of compensation, respondents filed appeal 
before the High Court. The High Court fixed the income 
of deceased at Rs.2,5001- per month and awarded 
· 
~9 
H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A compensation of Rs.4,05,500/- with interest at the rate of 
~ 
6% as was directed by the Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court, the order passed by the High 
Court was challenged on the ground that it was 
8 practically non-reasoned. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the normal course in a case where an 
appeal has been disposed of by a practically non-
e reasoned order, the matter is remitted for fresh 
consideration. But on facts, considering the passage of 
time and the limited nature of the controversy, this Court 
found it expedient to go through the records. Though it 
was claimed that the deceased was getting salary of 
0 Rs.2,500/- p.m., there was no evidence adduced to 
substantiate the claim. The MACT noticed that no 
evidence was adduced to substantiate the income and, 
therefore, notional income of Rs.1,500/- p.m. was fixed. 
One-third was deducted for personal expenses. The High 
E Court did not indicate any reason to fix the income at 
Rs.2,500/- p.m. though it deducted one-third for personal 
expenses. In the aforesaid background, the amount of 
compensation is fixed at Rs.3 lacs to be paid with interest 
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim 
F application. [Paras 4 and 5) (552-A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 395 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2005 of the High 
G Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1297 of 2003. 
H 
R. Nedumaran, P. Somasundaram and T. Harish Kumar for 
the Appellant. 
Girish Anantmurthy, Vaijayanti Girish and P.P. Singh for the 
• 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC v. SUGUNA AND ORS. 
551 
Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a B 
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the 
_.,.__ 
appeal filed by the claimants-respondents. Background facts 
in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 19.3.1998 a bus owned by the appellant-corporation c 
was plying between Erode to Mysore via Nanjangud. At about 
8.15 p.m. one Jayasheela (hereina.fter referred to as the 
'deceased') whq was driving two wheeler sustained injuries, 
because the bus dashed against the deceased who died on 
.... 
the spot. Respondent No.1 the widow of the deceased and his 
D 
two minor children filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation 
in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 
the 'Act'). Appellant filed its objections denying the liability and 
took the stand that the accident occurred because of the 
negligence on the part of the deceased. The first Additiona1 
E 
Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, 
Mysore (in short the 'MACT') awarded. a sum of Rs.1,83,500/-
as com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.