LexRAJ RANI & ORS. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 7 S.C.R. 1168 RAJ RANI & ORS. v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. Civil Appeal Nos. 3317-3318 of 2009 MAY 06, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUNKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Motot Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Compensation - Quantum of - Determination - Death of Assistant Engineer aged 42 years, drawing salary of Rs.17,431 - Application of C multiplier of 15 - Deduction of 113rc1 amount towards personal expenses and 113'd as compensation paid in Jump sum - Deduction of 50% as deceased driving vehicle negligently - Compensation of Rs.6,63,0001- by courts below- Challenge to - On appeal held: Taking into consideration the present D salary drawn by deceased as also future prospects of deceased,. applying multiplier of 15, making deduction of 11 rd 3 towards personal expenses and 50% on account of contributory negligence, claimants to be awarded Rs.12,80,0001- as compensation with interest@ 7 Y2 % p.a., E which includes funeral expenses and consortium. In this appeal order of courts below awarding compensation of Rs.6,63000/- with 7.5% interest p.a. for the death of Assistant Engineer aged 42 years, drawing F salary of Rs.17,431/- by applying multiplier of 15, deducting amount of 1/3rd twice and 50% on account of contributory negligence on part of the deceased, is under challenge. G H Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The fact that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.17 ,431 /- is not in dispute. Apart from the dearness allowance, if other allowances were payable which were beneficial to the entire family, the same should 1168 .. ...... RAJ RANI & ORS. V ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 1169 LTD. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J] have been taken into consideration for the purpose of A computation of the annual income. [Para 10] [1176-F-G] National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Srivastava & Ors. (2008) 2 sec 763 - relied on. 1.2 The deceased was aged about 42 years. If the B depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants were to be believed and there is no reason as to why they should not be, his future prospect also could • not have been ignored for the purpose of determining the annual income. For the said purpose, immediate future c prospect would be a relevant factor. It is possible in a given case, where the chance of promotion is remote or the deceased was at the end of his carrier, his future prospect would be kept out of consideration. But, evidently, he was to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. If he D was to be so promoted, his income would have been around 25,000/- .The said factor, therefore, was required • to be considered. [Para 11] [1176-G-H; 1177-A-B] General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors. E (1994) 2 sec 186; Smt. Sar/a Dix it & Anr. v. Ba/want Yadav & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 179 - relied on. 1.3 For computation of the total amount of j,. compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the future prospect may not be of much relevance. F But in a case where claim petition has been filed in terms of section 166 of the Act, the same would be a relevant factor. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court. However, keeping in view the fact that such a contention had all along been raised by the G .. claimants even before the tribunal and evidences have not been adduced in respect thereof on their behalf, it is difficult to ignore the said contention of the appellants. It is not necessary in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act to go by any rules of pleadings or evidence. Section H 1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S. C.R. A 166 of the Act speaks about grant of just compensation. The court's duty being to award just compensation, it will try to arrive at the said finding irrespective of the fact as to whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. [Paras 12 and 13] [1177-C-F] B Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274 - Referred to. 1.4 The deceased died at a very young age. He being highly qualified could have been promoted to higher ..,___ c posts. Although the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act are stricto sensu not applicable in a case under section 166 of the Act, it is not of much dispute that wherever the court has to apply the appropriate multiplier having regard to D several factors in mind, one of them would be the fac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.