LexSHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS.
v.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2018)
JANUARY 19, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles – Motor Accident Claim – 20 year old son of
appellant died in an accident – Claims Tribunal (MACT) adopted
income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-p.m – It applied a multiplier
of 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased and
granted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- – High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal – On appeal, held: Tribunal
gave cogent reasons for declining claim of the appellant that
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month – Correct multiplier
would be 17 based on the age of the deceased and an addition of
40% towards future prospects is also warranted – Loss of dependency
is Rs 8,56,800/- – Appellant also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of
estate and a further Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses – Accordingly,
appellant granted total compensation of Rs 8,86,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before MACT till
realization.
The appellant no.1’s son who was aged 20 years, died in an
accident after a truck dashed against his motor cycle. Appellant filed
claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal
declined to accept the income certificates produced by the appellant in
support of his claim that his son had a monthly earning of Rs.15,000/-
and instead took the income to be Rs.8,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 11
on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, it granted
compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-. In appeal, the High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for declining
to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the
father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of
the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 283
283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish
that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in
receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, the
assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para
6][286-C-D]
1.2 However, there is merit in the submission which has
been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to
apply the correct multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit
of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased and
the loss of dependency. Having regard to the judgment delivered
by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay
Sethi and Sarla Verma the correct multiplier should be 17 having
regard to the age of the deceased and an addition of 40 per cent
towards future prospects would also be warranted. On this basis
and since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency
would work out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled
to an amount of Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/
- towards funeral expenses. The award of compensation
accordingly stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellants
are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the
petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization. [Para 7][286-D-G]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 13 SCALE 12; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 21 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 –
followed.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
followed
Para 7
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
followed
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 448 of
2018.
From the Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCM No. 3193 of 2013.
S. N. Gupta, Ayush Gupta and Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the
Appellants.
Mohan Babu Agarwal, Celeste Agarwal, Chetanya Siddarth,
Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal has
arisen from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
its Jaipur bench confirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (M.A.C.T.).
2. An accident took place on 15 November 2008 when at about 9
p.m. Sonu Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from Mandi
Neem Ka Thana to his home. A truck bearing RExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.