LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DEO PATODI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 791 -> ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A v. DEO PATODI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3482 of 2009) MAY, 12 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Fatal accident of a 22 year old student having brilliant career - Claim for compensation by his parents - Tribunal awarding c compensation estimating his monthly income at Rs. 18, 0001 Dependency of parents calculated at 113 of his income - Cross appeals - High court maintaining estimated income, while holding the dependency as 213 of the income - On appeal, held: Income of the deceased should have been D estimated at Rs. 25, 0001- pm - Deduction of 113 of the income justified. Respondents-claimants filed a petition uls. 166 of ~ Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for the death of their 22 year old E ..... son in a motor accident. They made a claim of Rs. 75 lakhs compensation on the premise that while he was doing his studies in U.K., he was earning Rs. 80,0001- per • month in a part time job. After competition of his studies, he got an offer in a U.S. Based company at an annual F salary of Rs. 18 lakhs. Tribunal passed the award considering his earning capability as Rs. 18,0001- per month and deducting 213 thereof as his personal expenses. In view of age of the claimants multiplier of 13 applied. G ~ .. Claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. Their plea was that dependency of the parents should have been considered 791 H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 8 S.C.R. A at 2/3rd of the income and that expenses incurred during treatment should have been awarded. Cross-objection was filed by the Insurance Company. High court maint.ained the estimated income of the deceased, but opined that dependency of the claimants should have B been at 2/3rd of the income. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was also awarded towards medical expenses. Hence, the present cross-appeals. Allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismissing that filed by the Insurance Company, the C Court HELD: 1.1. The fact that the deceased was a brilliant student is not in dispute. He had graduated in Business Administration in U.K. Even as a student, in a job on a D •part-time basis he was being paid a salary of Rs.80,000/ . - per month ((UK£ 1008.31). He paid his income-tax even in U.K. After his graduation, he came back to India. He was offered a job , by a company based in Chicago, USA at an annual salary of Rs.18 lakhs (i.e. $ 41,600/-). E However, when the accident took place he was not working; having not accepted the said offer. He was still a student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of dependency on that basis. [Para 9) [797-E-G] F 1.2. The Tribunal and the High Court, might not be correct in holding that he would have earned only Rs.18,000/- per month. It is true that the cost of living in the western countries would be higher. The standard of living in the western countries cannot be followed; in the G absence of any material placed before this Court it should not be followed in India. [Para 10) [797-H; 798-A] H 1.3. The fair amount of compensation should have been calculated at Rs.25,000/- per month being about 1/ • ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEO PATODI 793 AND ORS. -' 3rd of the amount which he was receiving in U.K. [Para A 11] (799-F] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 281; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. (2002) B 6 sec 281, referred to. 2.1. Deduction of 113rd towards personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the same should be applied. The concept of joint family unlike the western countries c where it has been wholly evaporated, although on the ·~ decline, should also be taken into consideration. The deceased's father was a Doctor working in a Government Hospital; he was aged about 51 years at the time of the ~ accident; he would have retired from the Government job D after a few years. He might not, therefore, be completely dependent upon his son. Therefore, having regard to his age as also the age of his wife multiplier of 10 should be applied. This is done keeping in view the fact that the ~ court has a duty to grant a just and reasonable compensation. What would, however, be a just an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.