//
you're reading...
legal issues

Accident claim – M.V. Act – Just compensation – Lower courts failed to pay just compensation – keeping in view the future prospects of income and further, correct multiplier method was not applied taking into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of death. Lastly, compensation under the conventional heads towards loss of love and affection towards the widow, children and parents of the deceased was also not awarded. – Apex court allowed the appeal stating the Sarala Varma case applies to all pending cases Mutatis Mutandis and enhanced the compensation = ANJANI SINGH & ORS. … APPELLANTS VS. SALAUDDIN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS – 2014 ( April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41490

Accident claim – M.V. Act – Just compensation – Lower courts failed to pay just compensation – 

keeping in view the future prospects of income and  further, correct multiplier method was not applied taking into consideration the  age of the deceased at  the  time  of  death.  Lastly,  compensation  under  the conventional heads towards loss of love and  affection  towards  the  widow, children and parents of the deceased  was  also  not  awarded. – Apex court allowed the appeal stating the Sarala Varma case applies to all pending cases Mutatis Mutandis and enhanced the compensation =

 

“40. In what we have discussed above, we  sum  up  our  conclusions  as

    follows:

 

 

    (i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of  the

    1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15  years  and

    above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in

    Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma read with  para  42  of

    that judgment.

 

 

    (ii) In cases  where  the  age  of  the  deceased  is  upto  15  years,

    irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which  the  claim

    for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment  as

    indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as  pointed  out

    in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.

 

 

    (iii)  As  a  result  of  the  above,  while  considering   the   claim

    applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the

    deceased is above 15 years,  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  Claims

    Tribunals to seek guidance  or  for  placing  reliance  on  the  Second

    Schedule in the 1988 Act.

 

 

    (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines  stated

    in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of

    death.

 

 

    (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals

    shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.

 

 

    (vi)  Insofar  as  deduction  for  personal  and  living  expenses   is

    concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals  shall  ordinarily  follow

    the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in

    Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.

 

 

    (vii) The above  propositions  mutatis  mutandis  shall  apply  to  all

    pending matters where above aspects are under consideration.”

 

In view of the above decision  of  the  larger  Bench  of  this  Court,  the

appellants were held entitled to future prospects of  income  considered  at

the time of determination of compensation both  by  the  Tribunal  and  High

Court.  The monthly salary of the deceased was taken as [pic]4030/-  by  the

Tribunal. The High Court, in view of the answer  to  the  points  raised  by

this Court and keeping in view the age of the deceased which was  35  years,

has taken  50%  of  the  monthly  salary  to  arrive  at  the  multiplicand.

Therefore, towards future prospects at the rate of 50% with  monthly  income

of [pic]4030/- it would  come  to  [pic]2015/-,  making  the  total  monthly

income  to  [pic]6045/-.  Out  of         [pic]6045/-,   one   fourth   i.e.

[pic]1511/- shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased,  as

per the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma  &  Ors.  v.  Delhi  Transport

Corporation & Anr.[3] case, as the deceased has five  dependents,  thus  the

resultant figure would be [pic]4534/- per month  which after multiplying  by

12 would come to  [pic]54,408/- as annual income. The  multiplier  would  be

16 as per the above case which would come to [pic]8,70,528/- under the  head

of loss of dependency. We further award towards funeral expenses, a  sum  of

[pic]25,000/-, towards loss of love and affection of the  children  and  the

parents,   a   sum   of   [pic]1,00,000/–   and   further,    a    sum    of

[pic]1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium by the widow of the deceased,  as

per the legal principle laid down by this Court in  the  three  judge  bench

decision in Rajesh  & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.[4] We also award a sum  of

[pic]25,000/- for the cost of litigation as per the principle laid  down  by

this Court in Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors.[5]  Therefore,  the  amount

would come to [pic]11,20,528/-. Further, the Tribunal has passed  the  award

in the year  2000  and  the  appellants  have  received  [pic]3,25,298/-  on

22.7.2000 and [pic]1,80,221/- on  9.3.2007.  In  total  they  have  received

[pic]5,05,519/-. Now, they  are  entitled  to  the  remaining  amount,  i.e.

[pic]6,15,009/-. This amount shall bear interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  per

annum following the decision of  this  Court  in  Municipal  Corporation  of

Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.[6] from  the  date

of application till the date of payment. Out of this amount,  50%  shall  be

deposited in any nationalized bank of Appellants’ choice and  the  remaining

amount to be paid to them through demand draft within  six  weeks  from  the

date of receipt of a copy  of  this  judgment.  The  appeal  is  accordingly

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.


2014 ( April.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41490

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2009
ANJANI SINGH & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VS.

SALAUDDIN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

 

 

J U D G M E N T
V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated
29th November, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in FAO No.236 of 2001, wherein the High Court allowed the said
appeal and enhanced the compensation by [pic]1,20,600/- and awarded
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The same is questioned by the
appellants-claimants, on the ground that just and reasonable compensation
was not awarded keeping in view the future prospects of income and further,
correct multiplier method was not applied taking into consideration the age
of the deceased at the time of death. Lastly, compensation under the
conventional heads towards loss of love and affection towards the widow,
children and parents of the deceased was also not awarded. Hence, this
appeal was filed by the appellants seeking further enhancement of
compensation.

2. The facts in brief are stated hereunder:
On 17.09.1997 Sergeant Dalbir Singh, husband of appellant No. 1,
father of appellant nos. 2 to 4 and son of appellant no. 5 died in a road
accident. The accident took place at 10.15 p.m. on National Highway No. 28
between Air Force Station, Gorakhpur and Nandanagar Police Station, when
the deceased was going on his bicycle and was hit by truck No. UP-41A/1901
coming from Gorakhpur side. The said truck was driven by Respondent No.1,
owned by Respondent No.2 and insured by Respondent No.3, United India
Insurance Company.

On 24.11.1997, the appellant/claimants filed the Claim Petition No.217
of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (in short “the
Tribunal”) and claimed for [pic]15,00,000/- as compensation for loss to
estate of the deceased. The Tribunal held that, the deceased Sergeant
Dalbir Singh died because of the accident which took place due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 and awarded the appellants
[pic]2,49,600/- as compensation. The Tribunal determined the dependency of
appellants as [pic]31,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 8
since the deceased suffered death at the age of 35 and the age of
superannuation in the Air Force is 45-50 years.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the
appellants-claimants filed First Appeal No. 234 of 2011 before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 12.7.2000. The High Court
allowed the appeal and held that assessment of monthly income by the
Tribunal as [pic] 4030/- is correct based on the examination of the salary
certificate. The finding of the Tribunal leading to deduction of 1/3rd
amount towards personal expenses was held to be erroneous. Hence, this
finding was set aside and only 1/4th of the compensation was deducted
towards personal expenses. The total dependency amount came up to
[pic]3,62,700/- by applying a multiplier of 10 and [pic]2,500/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses and [pic]5,000 towards loss of consortium for
the widow of the deceased. In total, a compensation of [pic]3,70,200/- was
awarded. Thus, the compensation was enhanced by [pic]1,20,600/-, which
carried an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
till the date of payment.

4. This Court, vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2009, granted leave, and
referred the issue to a larger bench. This was in view of the divergence of
opinion across judgments of this Court, and this aspect of the matter
having not been considered in the earlier decisions, particularly in the
absence of any clarification from Parliament despite recommendations made
by this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra & Ors.[1], it was further directed to the Registry to place the
matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order
to constitute a larger Bench to answer the points referred to it. Pursuant
to the said order, the matter was placed before a larger Bench which
answered the points of reference in favour of the appellants, in the
decision reported in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.[2] The
points answered read as under:
“40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as
follows:
(i) In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the
1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and
above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in
Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of
that judgment.
(ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years,
irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim
for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as
indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out
in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.
(iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim
applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the
deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims
Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second
Schedule in the 1988 Act.
(iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated
in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of
death.
(v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals
shall follow paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.
(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is
concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow
the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.
(vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all
pending matters where above aspects are under consideration.”

In view of the above decision of the larger Bench of this Court, the
appellants were held entitled to future prospects of income considered at
the time of determination of compensation both by the Tribunal and High
Court. The monthly salary of the deceased was taken as [pic]4030/- by the
Tribunal. The High Court, in view of the answer to the points raised by
this Court and keeping in view the age of the deceased which was 35 years,
has taken 50% of the monthly salary to arrive at the multiplicand.
Therefore, towards future prospects at the rate of 50% with monthly income
of [pic]4030/- it would come to [pic]2015/-, making the total monthly
income to [pic]6045/-. Out of [pic]6045/-, one fourth i.e.
[pic]1511/- shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, as
per the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr.[3] case, as the deceased has five dependents, thus the
resultant figure would be [pic]4534/- per month which after multiplying by
12 would come to [pic]54,408/- as annual income. The multiplier would be
16 as per the above case which would come to [pic]8,70,528/- under the head
of loss of dependency. We further award towards funeral expenses, a sum of
[pic]25,000/-, towards loss of love and affection of the children and the
parents, a sum of [pic]1,00,000/- and further, a sum of
[pic]1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium by the widow of the deceased, as
per the legal principle laid down by this Court in the three judge bench
decision in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.[4] We also award a sum of
[pic]25,000/- for the cost of litigation as per the principle laid down by
this Court in Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors.[5] Therefore, the amount
would come to [pic]11,20,528/-. Further, the Tribunal has passed the award
in the year 2000 and the appellants have received [pic]3,25,298/- on
22.7.2000 and [pic]1,80,221/- on 9.3.2007. In total they have received
[pic]5,05,519/-. Now, they are entitled to the remaining amount, i.e.
[pic]6,15,009/-. This amount shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per
annum following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.[6] from the date
of application till the date of payment. Out of this amount, 50% shall be
deposited in any nationalized bank of Appellants’ choice and the remaining
amount to be paid to them through demand draft within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

 
……………………………………………………………J.
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
……………………………………………………………J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi,
April 25, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM NO.1E COURT NO.13 SECTION IV
FOR JUDGMENT

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4647 OF 2009

ANJANI SINGH & ORS. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

SALAUDDIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date: 25/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for judgment today.

 

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha
Misra and His Lordship.
Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of signed reportable
judgment with no order as to costs.

 

 
|(Pardeep Kumar) |(Renu Diwan) |
|AR-cum-PS |Court Master |
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

 

 
———————–
[1] (1996) 4 SCC 362
[2] (2013) 9 SCC 65
[3] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[4] (2013) 9 SCC 54
[5] (2014) 1 SCC 384
[6] (2011) 14 SCC 481

———————–
10

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,810,703 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,863 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com