SMT. RAJENDRA KUMARI & ANR. versus SMT. SHANTA TRIVEDI & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 20-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.Jr· 
'f· 
I 
SMT. RAJENDRA KUMAR! & ANR. 
v. 
SMT .. SHANTA TRIVEDI & .ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUIT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.I 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: ·Sections. 93, 94 and 95-Motor 
accident-Fatal-Claim-Reasonableness of compensation-Compu-
tation 
of-Insurance 
Company's 
liability 
admitted-Whether 
incumbent on Insurance.Company to file policy. 
Appellants 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter respectively of the 
deceased who died in a road accident, while travelling in a hired car, 
which collided with a truck. He died on the spot. At the time of his death 
hewas25. 
A 
B 
c 
Appellants filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tri-
D 
bunal claiming a compen•ation of Rs. I lac. The Tribunal's finding 
was that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car. 
Without giving reasons, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000 against 
the owner of the car and the. truck driver, and also assessed the liability 
of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.4,000. 
Against the award the appellants filed an appeal to the High 
Court challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded. The 
owner of the car filed a cross-objection. The High Court affirmed the 
award and dismissed the appeal, as also the cross-objection, stating that 
E 
) the compensation awarded was just and proper. 
__ _..,_....., .. , 
' 
\ 
. 
. 
F 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the High Court's judg-
ment affirming the Tribunal's award. On behalf of the appellants, it 
was contended that High Court was not justified in affirming the 
Tribunal's award of only Rs.10,000 as compensation. 
Allowing the appeal, 
"-· 
HELD: J. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lac on 
account of compensation. Out of this amount the Insurance Company, 
i.e., Respondent No. 4 is liable to pay Rs.4,000 and the other respon-
dents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the appellants the remain-
G 
ing amount. [766C] 
H 
761 
762 \ 
". 
, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
'\; 
''.: 
, 
A . 
\ < 2. It is true that the deceased was a student at Ille time of his 
death, but he was also looking after the business of hi• father and 
earning about Rs.1,000 a month. Even at the modest computation, the 
contribution of the deceased towards his family could not be Jess than 
Rs.500 per month, i.e. Rs.6,000 per year. Taking the normal span of 
B 
life to be. 60 years, he would have lived for another 35 years. It is 
apparent that the appellants have been deprived of more than a lac of 
rupees and, accordingly their claim for Rs.1 lac on account of com-
pensation was quite reasonable. Both the Tribunal and the High Court 
were not justified in assessing the amount of compensation payable to 
\(
the appellants at Rs.10~000 only. [765B-D] 
-(· 
c 
D 
E 
F 
, 
3. As the la_w stood at the material time, the maximum liability of 
)-
the Insurance Company in such a case was only to the tune of Rs.4,000. 
· In the appeal before the High Court, the appellants did not challenge 
the finding of the Tribunal that the statutory liability of the Insurance 
Company was Rs.4,000 only as conceded to by the appellants them: 
selves. In the circumstances, it was not incumbent upon the Insurance 
Company to.file the policy. [766A'B] · 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Juga/ Kishore & Ors., [1988] ACJ 
270, distinguished. 
_,, - " 
[This Court directed that the decretal amount should be paid 
within two months and in case of default, it will bear interest at the rate 
of 12% per annum till realisation.] [766D] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDiCTION: Civil Appeal No. 2086 
(N) of 1978. 
. ' 
.... '":"'" 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1976 of the Rajas-
'f
. than High Court in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nci. 73 of 1970. 
' 
. 
C.M. Lodha and H.M. Singh for theAppellants. 
B.R. Sabharwal, P.R. Ramasesh and H. Wahi for the Res-
. G 
pondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and 
decree of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the award made by the 
H Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. 
· 
SMT. RAJENDRA v. -SMT. SHANTA- [DUTI, J_) 
763 
In the night between -the 3rd and 4th_ December, 1966, Hari 
Singh, since deceased, the husband of the' appellant No. 1 and the 
father of the appellant No. 2, hired an Ambassador car belonging to 
the. Rajasthan Mahila Parishad for going to his native village at 
Kangeti in Madhya Pradesh from Udaipur in Rajasthari. When the car 
had gone 21 mile

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.