LexNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus KHIMLIBHAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' [2009) 12 S.C.R. 301 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. KHIMLIBHAI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5089 of 2009) AUGUST 4, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] .__.. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Personal expenditure of deceased - Deduction of, from total income of deceased A B for arriving at compensation amount - Carpenter - 40 years C of age - Died in a motor accident - Family consisting of 8 dependents - High Court fixed Rs. 100 as daily income of deceased, adopted multiplier of 17 and deducted 1/4th of total income on account of personal expenditure of the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.4.84 lacs - Held: No o ~ infirmity in order of High Court . .,. The claimants, respondent 1 to 8 were widow, sons, daughter and parents of deceased who died in motor . accident. The deceased was 40 years old and carpenter E by profession. Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.2.32 lacs. On appeal, High Court held .. that deceased was earning Rs.100 per day and since deceased's family consisted of dependents in all 8 persons, directed to deduct 1/4th of the total income towards personal expenditure of deceased. High Court F awarded total compensation of Rs.4.84 lacs by adopting multiplier of 17. The present appeaf is filed by the Insurance Company. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. Deceased was working as a carpenter. Thus, working as such, even in the year 1997 he could have comfortably earned Rs.100/- per day. This was also admitted by P.W.3 with whom the deceased was H 301 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A employed that he was being paid Rs.100/- per day. Even assuming that he was working only for six months in a year as carpenter and for remaining six months he was working in his own field, that would not materially affect his income. While he was working in his own field, he was B contributing to augment his income and thereby was saving Rs.100/- per day on the labour that he would have spent, if he had not workedl himself. Thus, looking to the matter from that angle, it is clear that he would have continued to earn Rs.100/- per day, whether he worked c as a carpenter or in his own field. [Para 16] [305-G-H; 306- A-C] 1.2. As far as application of proper multiplier is concerned, looking at the ;;:ige of the deceased and that of the widow multiplier of 17 which was applied by the D High Court is proper and does not call for interference. [Para 17] [306-C] 1.3. It stands proved that deceased left behind a large family to be looked after, who all were dependents on his E income. Keeping in view the family background, High Court committed no error in deducting only 1/4th amount from the total income of the deceased towards the t expenses which would have been incurred on himself. "'t F G [Paras 19 and 20] [306-E; ~106-F-G] Sar/a Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 sec 121, rnlied on. Case Law Reference: (2009) 6 sec 121 relied on Para 20 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5089 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.5.2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in M.A. No. 1492 of H 2004. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. 303 KHIMLIBHAI & ORS. ;.- Pankaj Bala Verma, Kiran Suri for the Appellants. A T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh, S.N. Singh, Vikas Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Vir Singh aged about 40 years, carpenter by profession I -1 met with a motor accident on 24th May 1997, while he was travelling in a jeep bearing No.MP11-4690 which was hit from c behind by an offending truck, bearing No.MP09-D-5665. He sustained injuries, was given first-aid in the hospital but succumbed to the same at 5.00 p.m. on the same date. 3. Respondent nos.1 to 8 herein, claiming to be the widow, sons, daughter and aged parents of the deceased, filed a Claim D J Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 )' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, M.P. (for short, 'the Tribunal') registered as Claim Case No.202 of 2003. They claimed a total '90mpensation ·Of Rs.8,31,000/- against the respondents, i.e., E insurance company (appellant herein), owner and driver of the truck. -'r 4. Both, the owner and the driver of the truck, were proceeded ex-parte and they did not file any written statement. F 5. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.