V. SUBBULAKSHMI & ORS. versus S.LAKSHMI & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 05-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I .-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 387 
V. SUBBULAKSHMI & ORS. 
A 
II. 
S.LAKSHMI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 990 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 5, 2008 
B 
[S.B.SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ] 
.. 
). 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -ss. 149(2), 166 and 173 Motor 
accident -By driver of the vehicle - Causing death - Claim 
for compensation -Income of deceased quantified by claimant c 
-No reliable evidence in support thereof - Tribunal awarding 
compensation after estimating the income less than that 
quantified by the claimant -Joint Appeal by the owner of the 
vehicle and insurance company - High Court dismissing the 
appeal of insurance company and awarding compensation D 
estimating the income lesser than estimated by the Tribunal 
- On appeal, held: Though estimation of income reached by 
. 
High Court is without any basis - However, in absence of 
-4 
I 
reliable evidence regarding the income, as claimed by the 
claimant, High Court cannot be said to have committed grave 
E 
error - Question of maintainability of appeal by insurance 
company questioning quantum of compensation, left open. 
Driver of a bus owned by respondent No.1 caused 
an accident owing to rash and negligent driving. This 
t-
resulted in death of the predecessor in interest of the F 
appellants. An application claiming compensation was 
filed by the appellants. They produced certain documents 
to show that the income of the deceased was about 
12,500/- per month, from two source·s i.e. as an 
~ 
agriculturist and also as a commission agent. Tribunal G 
... 
estimated the income at Rs. 9,6001- per month and 
-t· 
accordingly awarded compensation. Owner of the vehicle 
as well as the insurance company preferred appeal to 
High Court. High Court entertained the appeal of the 
387 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A owner and rejected that of the insurance company. High 
-t 
Court e~timated the income at Rs. 7,000/- per month and 
awarded compensation after deducting 113rd of the 
amount and applying multiplier of 18. Hence the present 
appeal. 
r
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Regarding the quantum of compensation, 
1 
the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant 
.A. 
evidences brought on record. Income tax returns having 
c been'filed after death of the victim of the accident, have 
rightly _not been relied upon. [Para 17] [397-E, F, G] 
1.2 In t_he fact situation of the case High Court has 
not relied upon all the documents filed by the appellant. It 
may be true that there was no basis for the High Court to 
D arrive at the conclusion that the income of the deceased 
was Rs. 4,000/- from agricultural operation and Rs;3000/-
from his commission business, but no reliable document 
' 
.l 
· having been produced to show that the deceased was 
).. 
~ 
earning an income of Rs.12,500/- per month, as claimed. 
E The High Court cannot be held to have thus committed 
any grave error in this behalf. There being no material 
available on record, this court is not in a position to 
interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. 
[Para 18] [398-B-E] 
F 
2. In the instant case, the owner ·of the bus was an 
~-
aggrieved person. He could maintain an appeal of his own. 
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act confers a right on any 
l 
aggrieved person to prefer an appeal from an award. It is 
., 
not necessary to go into the larger question as to whether 
G having regard to the bar contained in sub-Section (2) of 
Section 149 of the Act, the second respondent could have 
'1-
)< 
. preferred an appeal questioning the· quantum of 
compensati.on, as the High Court held that the appeal, 
even after deletion of the second respondent from the 
H array of the parties, the appeal preferred by the first 
<( 
j 
V. SUBBULAKSHMI & ORS. v. S.LAKSHMI & ANR. 
389
1 
. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
....... 
respondent was maintainable. [Paras 13 and 14] A 
[397-A, B, C] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Nicolletta 
Rohtagi and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 456; Narendra Kumar and 
Anr. vs. Yarenissa and Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 202 and Chinnama B 
George and Ors. vs. N.K. Raju and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 130-
referred to. 
' 
,A, 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 990 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.2.2006 of c 
· the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in C.M.A. No. 222/ 
2002. 
V. Krishnamurthy, V. Ramas.ubramanian for the Appella.nts. 
Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
"" 
S.B. SINHA, J

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