LexNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus SMT. SAROJ AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I [2009] 9 S.C.R. 81 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SMT. SAROJ AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2009) MAY 12, 2009 [S.8., SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 166 and 168 - Second Schedule - Vehicular accident resulting in death of a person A 8 - Compensation - Determination of - Appropriate multiplier C - Held:Compensation must be just - While determining compensation, amount of monetary loss which had been and would be suffered by heirs and legal representatives of deceased should be considered - For such purpose, the take- home salary of deceased, other allowance and perks which D . would have benefited the deceased's entire family and the prospective loss of future earnings should be borne in mind - On facts, where deceased was a 41 year old technician employed in a Multinational company earning around Rs. 17000 per month, Courts below were justified in adopting E a multiplier of 16 and in awarding compensation of Rs.22. 12 lakhs though only Rs.20 lakhs was claimed as compensat~on - The submission that the Court should hav_e awarded only the sum claimed is not correct. , Rani Gupta v. United India Insurance Company & Ors. (2009) 5 SCALE 439; United India lnsruance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu & Ors. JT2009(4) SC 315; Unitedlndia Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. v. PatriciaJean Mahajan & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 281; F The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 473 and Tami/N adu State Transport G Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and two Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 236; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava& Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 148, 81 . H 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 $.C.R. / A referred to. ~ Mallett v. Mc Mangle 1969 (2) All ER 178, referred to. Case Law Reference: B (2009) 5 SCALE 439 referred to Para 9 JT 2009(4) SC 315 referred to Para 12 ,;., 1969 (2) All ER 178 referred to Para 12 (2002) 6 sec 281 referred to Para 13 c (2005) 8 sec 473 referred to Para 13 (2005) 6 sec 236 referred to Para 13 ~ ..-- (2008) 2 sec 763 referred to Para 14 D (2003) 3 sec 148 referred to Para 15 )..- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 29.5.2007 of the High ~ E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 2041 of 2006. - Dr. Meera Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the *- ._ ____ F Appellant. Dr. Sushil Balwada for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 29.05.2007 passed by a r learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAQ No.2041 of 2006 whereby and H whereunder a First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein .;' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. SAROJ 83 AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] against a judgment and award dated 03.2.2006 passed by the A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak directing the appellant herein to pay compensation with interest to the respondent, was dismissed. 3. One Joginder Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and 8 father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while riding a two wheeler met with an accident on 29.11.2003 as it collided with a truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant by its owner who is respondent No.5 herein. 4. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicles C Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The deceased was an ·employee of Maruti Udyog Limited and had been drawing a sum of Rs.16,110/- per month. The Tribuna.I determined his income at Rs.17,244/- per month by its award dated 3.2.2006. His age was determined as 41 years 10 D months and 9 days. A multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive. at the amount of compensation at a sum of Rs.22, 12,200/-. 5. A First Appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned E judgment dated 29.05.2007. 6. Dr. Meera Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would urge : (1) The Tribunal and consequently the High Court should F have restricted the award of compensation only to the sum claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. (2) Provisions of Schedule II attached to Section 163-A being applicable strictly in cases where the income of the G deceased d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.