NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus CHAMUNDESWARI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 01-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 611
611
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
v.
CHAMUNDESWARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident – The victim-
deceased aged 35 years was working as Manager in Private
Company – Claimants are wife and minor son – One the fateful
day, he was driving car – At that time, the offending vehicle (Eicher
van) was in front of the car of the deceased – It was case of claimants
that all of sudden, the driver of Eicher van turned towards right
without giving any signal or indicator which resulted in accident –
The victim died and other passengers in the car i.e first respondent-
wife, respondent-minor son and sister of first respondent suffered
injuries – Respondents claimed Rs. 3 crores – Tribunal allowed the
claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,40,500/- with a
finding that there was contributory negligence – High Court held
that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of
Eicher van and taking annual income of deceased as Rs. 12.29,949/
- awarded total compensation of Rs. 1.85 crores – On insurance
company’s appeal, held: Evidence of PW-1 as well as PW-3 was
that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, took a
sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator – The
evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 was categorical and in absence of any
rebuttal evidence by the driver of Eicher van, High Court rightly
held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the
driver of Eicher van – PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and
PW-3, who gave statement before the police, was examined as eye-
witness – In view of such evidence on record, there was no reason
to give weightage to the contents of the FIR – The accident occurred
on 14.10.2013, the High Court correctly took into account the salary
of the deceased in Form-16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 –
Though, it was the claim of the respondents-claimants that the
deceased was earning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was not
accepted and the High Court itself assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum – As the deceased was in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
permanent job and having regard to age of the deceased on the
date of the accident, the future prospects and the multiplier were
correctly applied by the High Court – Even the amount of
compensation on other conventional heads is awarded correctly by
the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1
as well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of
the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal
or indicator. The evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 is categorical and in
absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of
Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident
occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van.
PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and PW-3, who has given
statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness. In
view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give
weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any
evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the
First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before
the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the
First Information Report. [Para 8][615-E-H]
2. The accident occurred on 14.10.2013, the High Court
has correctly taken into account the salary disclosed by the
deceased in Form–16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 and income
of the deceased is taken as Rs.12,29,949/- per annum for the
purpose of determination of loss of dependency. Though, it was
the claim of the respondents–claimants that the deceased was
earning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was not accepted and
the High Court itself assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.12,29,949/- per annum. As the deceased was in permanent
job and having regard to age of the deceased on the date of the
accident, the future prospects and the multiplier were correctly
applied by the High Court in conformity with the judgment of this
Court in the Case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another and also in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others. Even the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
amount of compensation on other conventional heads is awar

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