SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. versus MOHD. JAMEEL & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 06-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 14 
A 
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. 
v. 
MOHD. JAMEEL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009) 
B 
JANUARY 6, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 166 and 168 - Claim of 
.. 
I"'
Compensation - For fatal accident"- Claimant showing 
c earning of the deceased as Rs. 20, 000 PM from his business 
- Tribunal determining the Compensationtaking the monthly 
income of the deceased as Rs. 7, 0001 - and deducting 50% 
of the income towards his personal expenses - High Court 
reduced the compensation amount taking the income of the 
D deceased as Rs. 4, 0001- - On appeal, held : Tribunal has 
discretion to determine just compensation -
While 
" determining just compensation, it is necessary to ascertain 
the net income of the deceased available for himself and his 
dependants at the time of his death and the amount he was 
E accustomed to spend on himself - Onus to prove the earning 
of the deceased is on the claimant - Bare assertion to that 
effect is not sufficient to discharge the onus - On facts, 
claimant failed to prove the income of the deceased as 
claimed - Future prospects of expansion of business also not 
F proved - Compensation determined taking the monthly 
income of the deceased as Rs. 5, 5001-. 
Appellant-dependants of the victim of a fatal 
accident, filed a petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988 claiming compensation. Their claim was that the 
G deceased was 20 years old and was engaged in his own 
business and was earning Rs. 20,000 per month. In 
support, of the earning they exhibited his current account 
., 
(Ex. P.38) and the transaction of the deceased with his 
client (Ex. P.23) and also income tax return (Ex. P.34) 
H 
14 
" -
SYED BASHEER AHAMED & ORS. v. MOHD. JAMEEL & 
15 
ANR. 
declaring income from business as Rs. 43,000/-. Tribunal 
A 
taking the monthly income at Rs. 7,000/ - per month, and 
deducting half of the income towards personal expenses 
of the deceased, etc. determined the compensation as 
Rs. 6,08,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. High Court, in 
appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent 
B 
No. 1) , reduced the compensation to Rs. 3,56,000/ -
taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/ 
- per month on the basis of income tax assessment. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 
enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the 
amount of compensation which appears to be just." 
However, the objective factors, which may constitute the 
D 
basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been 
indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which 
appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal 
in the matter of determination of compensation. 
Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not 
E 
empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation 
arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to 
determination of compensation. Similarly, although the 
Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to 
be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the 
persons affected nor should it be punitive to the 
person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination 
of compensation must be based on certain date, 
establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred 
F 
by the dependents of the deceased and the 
compensation to be awarded to them. The amount of G 
compensation determined to be payable to the 
claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by ~ccepted 
legal standards. [Para 9] [21-H; 22-A-D] 
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and 
Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176, relied on. 
1.2. In the matter of computation of compensation, 
there is no uniform rule or formula for measuring the 
value of a human life. Though a special provision for 
8 assessment of compensation on structured formula basis 
for the purpose of a claim petition u/s. 163A of the Act has 
been inserted, but no such formula has been laid down 
for determination of compensation in a claim petition u/ 
s. 166 of the Act, though there is no bar in taking the said 
C schedule as a guiding factor while determining the just 
compensation by applying multiplier method. [Para 11) 
(23-A-C] 
1.3. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure 
o of damages awarded to the dependents is the pecuniary 
loss suffered and li
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.