UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus INDIRO DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 03-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
INDIRO DEVI & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016)
JULY 03, 2018
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Fatal accidents – Compensation – Claim of – Rash and
negligent driving by truck driver – Death of victim-employee of a
company – Tribunal passed the award relying on the salary
certificate issued by the employer of the deceased – Income tax
record produced by claimant not taken into account since claimants
did not lead any evidence to explain contradiction between the two
figures emerging from the evidence of the employer – In Revision,
the High Court took into account the income of the deceased as
found in the income tax assessment – On appeal, held: Salary
certificate not to be the only basis to assess income of the deceased
for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the
claimants for the loss of life – Income of the deceased as stated in
the Income Tax return not to be totally ignored – Thus, order passed
by the High Court does not call for interference.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: There is no doubt that if the salary certificate is
taken into account the salary of the deceased should be taken as
Rs. 1,06,176/- since the gross salary was Rs.8848/-per month.
That, however, does not mean that the income of the deceased
as stated in the Income Tax return should be totally ignored. It is
not possible to agree with the observation of the tribunal that it
was necessary for the claimants to “explain the said contradiction”
between two figures of income. The claimants had led reliable
evidence that the deceased had returned an income of Rs.
2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece of evidence
has not been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the deceased
had income from other sources also. There is nothing in the law
which requires the tribunal to assess the income of the deceased
only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 169
169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.
In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. [Paras 9, 10][172-D-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2015 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No.408 of 2006 and C.A.
No. F.A.O. No. 4086 of 2005.
A. K. Raina, Binay Kumar Das, Advs. for the petitioner.
Satish Kumar, Adv. for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. The deceased was 39 years old.  He was
employed with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as
‘FCI’).  He met with an accident when the three-wheeler he was
travelling in collided with a rashly driven Canter truck and died. The
claimants claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).
2. These petitions arise from the order dated 27.08.2015 passed
in  C.R. No. 408 of 2006 and the Civil Appeal  FAO No. 4086 of 2005 by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  The Insurance
Company is before us (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) in the
instant petitions.
3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash
and negligent driving and held the owner of the truck, the insurer and the
driver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation
determined.
4. The Tribunal passed an award of a sum of Rs. 12,90,000/- in
favour of the claimants recoverable @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition, till its realization from the respondents jointly and
severally.
5. The issue in this case revolves around the income of the
deceased. On behalf of the accounts section of the employer of the
deceased, it was deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 8848/- as
gross monthly salary.  The deponent proved the salary certificate.  The
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
amount of salary was not questioned.  The Tribunal passed the award
on the basis that the salary he was receiving i.e. Rs. 8848/-.
6. The Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the Income
Tax Returns of the deceased showed an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- per
annum for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 2,17,130 for the
assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal held that the claimants had not
led any evidence to explain the contradictions

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