REKHA JAIN & ANR. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 01-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 750 
REKHA JAIN & ANR. 
V. 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5373-5375 of 2013) 
AUGUST 1, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - 149(2) and 170(b) - Fatal 
accident - Claim for compensation - Claims Tribunal awarded 
C compensation of Rs.10,62,0001- after deducting 1/3rd of the 
income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and 
by applying multiplier of 11 - Appeal by the claimant as well 
as the insurer - High Court reduced the compensation to 
Rs. 8, 00, 0001- - Held: High Court wrongly interfered with the 
D quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal -
Moreover, the insurance company had no right to challenge 
the quantum of compensation in absence of permission from 
the Tribunal - Hence, judgment of Tribunal is restored. 
A renowned doctor lost her life in a motor accident. 
E The appellants (her daughter and husband respectively) 
filed petition claiming compensation. Claims Tribunal 
granted compensation at Rs.10,62,0001- with interest @ 
6% P.A. taking her income as Rs. 12,000/- p.m. by 
deducting 1/3rd out of the monthly salary towards her 
F personal expenses and using multiplier of 11. The 
claimants went in appeal seeking enhancement of 
compensation amount, while insurer also filed appeal. 
High Court reduced the compensation amount to 
G 
Rs.8,00,0001-. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal and the High Court have erred 
in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in 
H 
750 
REKHA JAIN & ANR. v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. 751 
LTD. 
favour of the appellants keeping in view the principles 
A 
laid down by this Court in various judgments in the 
matters of motor accidents claims keeping in view the 
object of coropensation which will be the source of the 
maintenance for them particularly, in respect of the 
claimant, appellant no.1. The High Court instead of B 
enhancing the compensation, though the case is made 
out in the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement, 
has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction and has 
reduced the compensation from Rs.10,62,000/- to 
Rs.8,00,000/- without taking into consideration the facts c 
of the case that the deceased was a renowned doctor 
serving in College of Homeopathy and Research, and 
she also had private practice and had earned good 
reputation in the area. [Para 11] [757-C-E] 
2. It should have been taken into consideration that D 
the employment of the deceased was a public 
· employment. Therefore, it was a stable employment for 
a period of another seven years and there could have 
been revision of wages and promotional benefits accrued 
in her favour if she was alive. 30% should have been 
E 
_ added to the month!y salary of the deceased at Rs. 
12,000/-, as future prospects of income and that amount 
could have been taken as monthly income of the 
deceased for the purpose of determining the 
compensation towards the loss of dependency of the 
F 
appellants. [Para 15] [758-E-G; 759-A] 
Sar/a Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr. 
2009 (6)SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR 1098 - relied on. 
3. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has · G 
been interfered with by the High Court in the Appeal filed 
by the Insurance Company, though it has no right to 
challenge the quantum of. compensation as it has got 
limited defence as provided under Section 149(2) of the 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A Motor Vehicles Act in the absence of permission from the 
Tribunal to avail the defence on behalf of the insurer as 
required under Section 170(b) of the Act. [Para 15) [759-
G-H; 760-A] 
8 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nico/Jetta Rohtagi and 
Ors. (2002) 7SCC 456: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 456 - relied on. 
4. The Tribunal in exercise of its original jurisdiction 
has taken Rs.12,0001- as monthly income of the deceased 
and has deducted 113rd out of the monthl_y salary towards 
C her personal expenses and computed the compensation· 
both on the loss of dependency as well as the 
conventional heads and has awarded Rs.10,62,0001-. The 
same should not have been interfered with by the High 
Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, in 
D view of the facts, circumstances and the finding recorded 
by the Tribunal, its judgment is restored. [Paras 16 and 
17] [761-A-B, E] 
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Patricia 
E Jean Mahajanand Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 281: 2002 (3) SCR 
1176 - referred to. 
F 
Cas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.