advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, January 16, 2015

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 OF 2014) KANHSINGH & ANR ...APPELLANTS Vs. TUKARAM & ORS ...RESPONDENTS




                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015
                   (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 OF 2014)


KANHSINGH & ANR                         ...APPELLANTS

                                     Vs.

TUKARAM & ORS                          ...RESPONDENTS



                               J U D G M E N T



  V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the  impugned  Judgment
and order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  Bench
at Indore wherein  the  High  Court  partly  allowed  and  disposed  of  the
Miscellaneous Appeal No.2918 of 2009 filed by the appellants.

The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  to  appreciate  the  case
with a view to determine whether the appellants are entitled for  relief  as
prayed in this appeal.

On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the appellants  herein,  aged
27 years, was driving the motor  cycle  No.  MP-09-LM-8244  along  with  his
friend Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which  was  being  ridden  by
Deependra met with an accident when it was hit by  tanker  No.  MP-14-B-6645
driven by Tukaram, respondent No. 1 herein.  Deependra  Singh  succumbed  to
his injuries during the course of treatment.

The claimant-appellants, parents of the  deceased  filed  a  claim  petition
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jawra,  District  Ratlam  (M.P.)
(in short 'the Tribunal') under Section 166 of the M.V.  Act,  1988,  for  a
compensation of Rs.27,85,000/-. The  Tribunal  by  its  judgment  and  award
partly allowed the Claim Petition by awarding a total sum of  Rs.12,10,014/-
.

Being aggrieved by the judgment  and  award  passed  by  the  Tribunal,  the
appellants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.  2918  of  2009  before  the  High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court by its judgment and  award
dated 23.07.2012 partly allowed the said appeal and  disposed  of  the  same
with an enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for  the  appellants  that  the
courts below failed to notice that the deceased was 27 years of age and  was
posted as the Manager at HDFC Bank at the time of  the  accident.  He  would
have served for another 35 years if he would  have  been  alive  and  during
that period his salary would have certainly  doubled.  The  learned  counsel
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in  Vimal  Kanwar  &  Ors.  v.
Kishore Dan & Ors.[1], wherein it was held thus:-

"31. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. this Court noticed that the High  Court
determined the compensation by granting 100% increase in the income  of  the
deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that in the normal course,  the
deceased would have served for 22 years and during that  period  his  salary
would have certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court...."

It is further contended that the courts below have erred in the  computation
of income of the deceased as Rs. 11,146/-  p.m.  In  the  case  of  Raghuvir
Singh Matolya & Ors. v. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors.[2] and in Sarla Verma  and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation  &  Another[3],  this  Court  observed
that the deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and  medical
allowance are done on incorrect  basis  and  should  have  been  taken  into
consideration the calculation of the income of the deceased. Therefore,  the
monthly income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.15,155/- p.m.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the  respondents  contended  that
the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on  all  material
issues of fact but observed that the quantum of compensation in  respect  of
loss due to death deserved to be enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-.  Therefore,  the
High Court has already enhanced the compensation  sufficiently,  which  does
not call for interference of this Court with the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our  considered  view,
the courts below have erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased  at
Rs.11,146/- p.m. From the facts, circumstances and evidence  on  record,  it
is clear that the deceased was 27 years of age, working  with  HDFC  as  the
Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum (i.e. Rs.15,155/-  p.m.)  and  there
were definite chances of his further promotion and  consequent  increase  in
salary by way of periodical revision of the salary on the basis of  cost  of
living Index prevalent in the area if he  would  alive  and  worked  in  the
bank. Therefore, adding 50% under  the  head  of  future  prospects  to  the
annual income of the deceased according to the principle laid  down  in  the
case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), the  total  loss  of  income  comes  to
Rs.2,72,790/- per  annum          [Rs.  1,81,860  +  (1/2  *  Rs.1,81,860)].
Deducting 10% tax (Rs.27,279/-), net annual income comes  to  Rs.2,45,511/-.
Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses  since  the  claimants
are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency  comes  to  1,63,674   X
11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/-.

The Tribunal and the High Court have further erred in law in  awarding  only
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to  the
principles laid down by this Court in  Rajesh  &  Ors.  v.  Rajbir  Singh  &
Ors.[4]. Hence, we award Rs.25,000/- towards the same.

Further, the Tribunal and the High Court have erred  in  not  following  the
principles laid down by this Court in M.  Mansoor  &  Anr  v.  United  India
Insurance Co. Ltd.[5] in awarding a meagre sum  of  just  Rs.30,000/-  under
the heads of loss of love and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/-
 to the appellants towards the same.

Further, we award Rs.5,00,190/- towards medical  expenses  incurred  towards
medical treatment.

In the result, the appellants shall be entitled to  compensation  under  the
following heads:


|1.       |Loss of dependency         |Rs.18,00,414/-           |
|2.       |Loss of love and affection |Rs.1,00,000/-            |
|3.       |Funeral expenses           |Rs.25,000/-              |
|4.       |Medical expenses           |Rs.5,00,190/-            |
|         |TOTAL                      |Rs.24,25,604/-           |

The Courts below have erred in not granting the interest on compensation  at
the rate of 9% p.a.  as  per  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  case  of
Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v.  Association  of  Victims  of   Uphaar
Tragedy[6].  The  total  compensation  payable  to  the  appellants  by  the
respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/- with  interest  at  the
rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date  of
payment to the appellants.

 Accordingly, we allow this appeal in awarding Rs.24,25,604/- with  interest
@9% p.a. The respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay by way of  demand
draft in favour of the appellants or  deposit  the  same  with  interest  as
awarded  before  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Jawara,  District
Ratlam, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants,  if  any,
within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this  judgment.  No
Costs.



..............................................................................
                                                                          J.
                        [V.GOPALA GOWDA]





..............................................................................
                                                                          J.
                        [C. NAGAPPAN]


New Delhi,
January 13, 2015
-----------------------
[1]   (2013) 7 SCC 476
[2]   (2009) 15 SCC 363
[3]    (2009) 6 SCC 121
[4]     (2013) 9 SCC 54
[5]      2013 (12) SCALE 324
[6]    (2011)14 SCC 481

-----------------------
|NON REPORTABLE    |





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.