URMILLA PANDEY AND ORS . versus KHALIL AHMAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 10-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA

Judgment (excerpt)

URMILLA PANDEY AND ORS . 
A 
• 
~ 
v. 
KHALIL AHMAD AND ORS. 
MAY JO, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
• 
Motor Accidents Claims : Compensation to legal heirs of decease~ 
~ 
Tribunal awarding Rs. 40,600 as compensation-Held, amount of Rs. 40, 600 
is too /ow-Tribunal erred in making 33% deduction for lumpsumpayment 
and taking life expectancy to be 58-It could not be less than 65-Compen- c 
sation enhanced to Rs. 1,20, 000. 
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Vehicle involved in accident-Proof 
of Insurance-Application by owner of car stating that vehicle was insure~ 
Tribunal rejecting application for want of affidavit-Held, Tribunal should 
D 
,) 
have asked Insurance Conipany to produce necessary documents-Insurance 
cover note produced before this Coun after 25 years after accident may not 
by itself be sufficient to make Insurance Company liable to pay award money 
but there is conteniporaneous evidence to show that cover note is genuine. 
The husband of appellant No. 1 died in a car accident at the age of E 
29 years. She filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims 
Tribunal against the driver and the owner of the car as well as the 
financiers and the New India Insuranct: Company, claiming Rs. 1,17,747 
as compensation. The Tribunal held that the accident took place on 
account ?f rash and negligent act of the driver. It awarded Rs. 40,600 as 
F 
. ....J 
compensation to be paid by the owner of the car. The Tribunal dismissed 
the claim against the financier and the Insurance Company holding that 
the car could not be proved to be insured. On appeal, ti;c High Court 
upheld the award of the Tribunal. The widow and the two childern of the 
deceased filed the appeal by special leave. 
The appellants produced before this Court, an insurance cover note G 
dated 30.12.1969 showing that the vehicle involved in the accident was 
" 
insured with an insurance company which merged with the respondent-
' 
New India Insurance Company. 
;J ··~ 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
H 
1001 
cl 
A 
B 
c 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal has grossly erred in computing the com-
pensation amount. The Tribunal \\'as not justified in assuming the life 
expectancy to be 58. It could not be less than 65 even at that point of time. 
The Tribunal also fell into error in making 33% deduction for the lump-
sum payment. As a matter of fact, no payment has been received by the 
unfortunate family. The amount of Rs. 40,600 awarded by the Tribunal is 
quite low. Without going into various heads under which the appellants 
could be compensated, in order to do complete justice between the parties, 
the appellants be awarded Rs. 1,20,000 (rounding - off the figure of Rs. 
1,17,747.70 paise as claimed by the appellants) with interest at the rate of 
12% per annum from the date of the application before the Tribunal. 
[1006-E-G] 
2.1. The Insurance cover note placed before this Court almost 25 
years after the accident may not by itself be sufficient to make the 
Insurance Con1pany liable to pay the award money but ti1er~ is contem-
poraneous evidence on the record to show· that the cover note is genuine. 
D 
Owner of the car had filed an application before the Tribunal in April, 
1979 stating that the car was insured with 'Canara Motor and General 
Insurance Company Limited.' The Tribunal rejected the a;11i)ication on 
the ground that no affidavit in support of the said application was filed. 
The Tribunal should have called upon the insurance company to produce 
the necessary do~uments. It failed in its duty to judiciously investigate and 
E adjudicate the claim filed by the appellants. (1005-D-FJ 
2.2 The car involved in the accident was insured with the Premier 
insurance Company Limited and the Canara Motor & General Insurance 
Company Limited. The respondent-New India Assurance Company, being 
the successor of the said companies is liable to pay the a\.l·ard money as 
F 
an insurer. (1006-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4365 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dateG 4.1.89 of the Allahabad High 
G Court in F.A.0. No. 646 of 1979. 
Ram Ashraya Mishra and K.K. Gupta for the Appellants. 
S.M. Suri and Pramod Dayal for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
..... 
' . 
~· 
) 
MRS. URMIT.Li\ v. KHALJT.. AHMAD !KULDIP SINGH,J.] 
1003 
KULDI:' SINGH, .I. Special leave granted. 
Ram Kishon; Pandey - while coming hu111c on a cycle from \Vo

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