SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT CO. LTD. versus NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT INSURANCE CO.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 16-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

20 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEIKllUPURA TRANSPORT CO. LID. 
v. 
NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT INSURANCE CO. 
March 16, 1971 
(K. S. ffBG[)E AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 s. llOB and s. 95(2) (b)-Principles of com-
pensation to be granted to legal representatives of person dyinK in acci-
dent U1'der s. 1108-Maximum amount of liability of insurer und.~r s. 95 
(2)(b). 
A passenger bus belonging to the appellant met with an accident, as 
a result of which two persons B and N died on tho spot. 
Tho legal 
representativt:s of the deceased persons applied for compensation before 
the tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Their claim was oppos-
ed by tho appellant as well as by the insurance company. The tribunal found 
that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver and therefore 
the claimants were entitled to compensation. The tribunal 
compu~ed 
the co?/.pens~tion due to the legal representatives of B at Rs. 18000. Out 
of that sum jt determined the compensation due to the widow at Rs. 8000; 
the compensation duo to one of his daughters was fixed at Rs. 4000 and 
to the other at Rs. 6000. But as tho daughters had not made their claims 
during the prescribed time, the Tribunal disallowed the compensation <lue 
to them and 1tranted a decree in favour onlv of B's widow.. In the case 
of N the tribunal computed the total compensation payable at Rs. 18000 
and granted that sum to his legal representatives. It directed that the entire 
sum payable by the appellant should be paid by the insurance company. 
The insurance company as well as the legal representatives of the dl":ceased 
persons appealed to the High Court. The High Court enhanced tho com-
pensation payable to the legal representatives of both B and N frnm 
Rs. 18000 to Rs. 36000. It. condoned the delay in making the claim by tho 
da~hters of B and made the entire sum payable to his legal representa· 
tives. It also allowed the appeal of the insurance company and limited the 
amO\IDt payable by the insurance company to Rs. 2000 in the case of each 
of the deceased persons in accordance with s. 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles 
Act. 
By special leave appeals were filed in this Court. The appellant 
challenged (i) the amount of compensation as granted by tho High Court, 
(ii) the condonation of delay in the case of B's daughters and (iii) the limit-
ing of the amount payable by the insurance company to Rs. 2000. 
HELD: (i) Under s. llOB of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the tribu-
nal is required to fix such compensation as appears to it to be just. The 
power given to the tribunal is wide. The pecuniary loss to the aggrieved 
party would depend on data which cannot be ascertained accurately but 
must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The general 
principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balanci11g 
on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit, 
and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources 
comes to them by reasons of the death, that is, the balance of loss and 
gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained. (25B-DJ 
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Ve/uswami & Ors., [1962] I 
S.C.R. 929, relied on. 
The determination of the queirition of compensation depends on several 
imponderables. In the assessment of those imponderables there is likely 
to be a margin of error. If the assessment made by the High Court cannot 
SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT •. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT (Hegde,J.) 
21 
be considered to be unreasonable-and in the present case it could not be 
A 
said to be unreasonable-it will not be proper for this court to interfere 
\\'ith the same. Taking an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances 
of the present case it could not be held that the Compensation awarded 
to the legal representatives of the deceased persons by the High Court was 
excessive. 
[24E] 
(ii) By the time B's daughters were in1pleaded the time for filing ap-
plications for compensation by them had elapsed. 
It was conceded that 
B 
Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone the delay in making the claim. The 
Tribunal had not chosen to condone the delay. 
But the High Court has 
in its discretion condoned the delay. The wife of B was an illiterate lady ; 
she was helpless and without assist:ince. 
In the circumstances this Court 
would not be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the 
High Court in condoning the delay in question. [2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.