RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 845
845
RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS.
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation – In the
instant case, two persons died (on spot) of injuries suffered by the
accident caused by the truck driven in a rash and negligent manner
– Appellants (dependents of the deceased persons) filed claim
petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – Tribunal
awarded compensation to the appellants but on appeal by insurance
company before the High Court, the High Court reduced the quantum
of compensation by relying upon the contention of insurance
company that the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased
persons were taken into account by the tribunal without examining
the person who issued the said documents – On appeal, held: High
Court erred while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip on
the ground that the person issuing it was not examined – The said
documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and
were also corroborated by the statements of the wife of the deceased
and his co-workers – Once the actual occurrence of the accident
was established, the compensation awarded must be just and fair.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Beneficial Legislation – Standard
of Proof – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of
legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases,
once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established,
the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation –
Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not
applicable in motor accident compensation cases – The standard
of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability
and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt
which is followed in criminal cases.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Loss of Consortium – Tribunal
awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium – The compensation
under this head needs to be increased by 10% after every three
years.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident
has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award just
and fair compensation. Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a
criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation
cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind must
be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal
cases”. [Para 19][852-F-G]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.
(2011) 10 SCC 509 : [2011] 14 SCR 763; Sunita &
Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &
Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486 : [2019] 3 SCR 329; Kusum
Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 646 : [2011]
3 SCR 480 – relied on.
2. The view taken by the High Court while rejecting the
salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the
ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents
was not examined before the Tribunal. The said documents are
conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also
corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife and his
co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis
of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. [Para
20][853-A-C]
3. The grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal towards loss of
consortium is insufficient, and deserves interference. The grant
of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to
Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.1,76,000/
-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeral
expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/-
each. [Para 31][856-H; 857-A]
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors
(2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; United India
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
847
Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
& Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 – followed.
Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 : [2011] 9
SCR 922; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu
Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 – referred to.
Case Law Refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.