C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6151 OF 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.4705 of 2019)
National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
versus
Chamundeswari & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R.SUBHASH REDDY,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by National Insurance
Company Ltd. (3rd Respondent before the High
Court), aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
03.08.2018, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in CMA No.1204 of 2018. By
the aforesaid order, the High Court has partly
1
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by enhancing
compensation to Rs.1,85,08,832/-.
3. The 1st Respondent is wife and the 2nd
Respondent is minor son of the deceased Mr.
Subhash Babu, who died in a road accident on
14.10.2013. The deceased Mr. Subhash Babu, aged
about 35 years was working as Manager HR in a
Private Limited Company. On the date of accident,
he was driving Maruti car bearing No.DL-2C-P-5414
on NH-47 – main road from Perumanallur to Erode.
At that time, the Eicher van bearing Registration
No.TN-33-AZ-5868 was proceeding in front of the
car driven by the deceased. It is the case of the
respondents–claimants that all of a sudden, the
driver of Eicher van has turned towards right
side without giving any signal or indicator. In
the said accident, driver of the Maruti car, Mr.
Subhash Babu, died and other passengers in the
car i.e. 1st Respondent–wife, 2nd Respondent–minor
son and sister of the 1st Respondent, suffered
injuries.
2
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
4. In the Claim Petition, filed by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court,
Tiruppur, respondents claimed compensation of
Rs.3 crores. The respondents pleaded negligence
on the part of the driver of Eicher van as he has
taken right turn without giving any signal or
indicator, as such, accident occurred only due to
negligence of driver of Eicher van. The appellant
and others have appeared before the Claims
Tribunal and opposed the claim. The Claims
Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2017 passed in
M.C.O.P. No.842 of 2014 has allowed the claim
partly and awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,500/-
with a finding that there was a contributory
negligence on the part of drivers of both the
vehicles in ratio of 75% and 25% on the part of
the deceased and the driver of Eicher van
respectively. On appeal, the High Court by
recording a finding that accident occurred only
due to the negligence of the driver of the Eicher
van and the annual income of the deceased was
3
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
Rs.12,29,949/-, has awarded a total compensation
of Rs.1,85,08,832/-, including the compensation
on conventional heads. Aggrieved by the judgment
and order of the High Court, the Insurance
Company filed this Appeal before this Court.
5. We have heard Mr. K. K. Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant–Insurance Company and
Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents–Claimants.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is twofold. Firstly, it is submitted
that though the Tribunal has correctly
apportioned the negligence on the part of the
deceased and the driver of Eicher van, the same
was overturned by the High Court, contrary to the
evidence on record. Mainly it is contended that
in the First Information Report, it was
categorically mentioned that accident occurred
only due to negligence by the deceased. In spite
of the same, such important documentary evidence
is ignored by the High Court. The learned counsel
in support of his arguments placed reliance on
4
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
the judgments of this Court in the case of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata
Shukla and Others1 and in the case of Nishan Singh
and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2.
It is, further, submitted by the learned counsel
that the compensation awarded by the High Court
is exorbitant in absence of any acceptable
evidence on record to show income of the
deceased, as pleaded in the Claim Petition.
7. On the other hand, Mr. V. Balaji, learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that the
accident occurred only due to the sheer
negligence on the part of the driver of Eicher
van. It is submitted that the deceased was
driving Maruti car and ahead of them the Eicher
van was proceeding and the driver of the said van
turned towards right side without any signal or
indicator and the said lapse resulted in the
accident. It is, further, submitted that the
deceased was working as Manager HR in a Private
Limited Company and was earning a sum of
1
2007 (13) SCC 476
2
2018 (6) SCC 765
5
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
Rs.1,33,070/- per month, in spite of the same,
the High Court has taken income of the deceased
at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum and awarded the
compensation. It is submitted that in view of the
oral and the documentary evidence on record, a
just compensation is awarded by the High Court
and there are no grounds to interfere with the
same.
8. It is clear from the evidence on record of
PW–1 as well as PW–3 that the Eicher van which
was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden
right turn without giving any signal or
indicator. The evidence of PW–1 & PW–3 is
categorical and in absence of any rebuttal
evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van,
the High Court has rightly held that the accident
occurred only due to the negligence of the driver
of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1
herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who
has given statement before the police, was
examined as eye–witness. In view of such evidence
on record, there is no reason to give weightage
6
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
to the contents of the First Information Report.
If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary
to the contents in the First Information Report,
the evidence which is recorded before the
Tribunal has to be given weightage over the
contents of the First Information Report. In the
judgment, relied on by the appellant’s counsel in
the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.
Premlata Shukla and Others1
, this Court has held
that proof of rashness and negligence on the part
of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine
qua non for maintaining an application under
Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it
is held that the factum of an accident could also
be proved from the First Information Report. In
the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and
Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2
,
this Court has held, on facts, that the car of
the appellant therein, which crashed into truck
which was proceeding in front of the same, was
driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient
distance as contemplated under Road Regulations,
7
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether
driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there
cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is
judged having regard to facts of the case and
evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in
the present case on hand, we are of the view that
both the judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant, would not render any
assistance in support of his case.
9. Even with regard to quantum of compensation,
it is clear from the judgment of the High Court
that the accident occurred on 14.10.2013, the
High Court has correctly taken into account the
salary disclosed by the deceased in Form–16 for
the Financial Year 2012-2013 and income of the
deceased is taken as Rs.12,29,949/- per annum for
the purpose of determination of loss of
dependency. Though, it was the claim of the
respondents–claimants that the deceased was
earning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was not
accepted and the High Court itself assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per
8
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
annum. As the deceased was in permanent job and
having regard to age of the deceased on the date
of the accident, the future prospects and the
multiplier were correctly applied by the High
Court, which is in conformity with the judgment
of this Court in the Case of Sarla Verma (Smt)
and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another3 and also in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others4. Even the amount of compensation on other
conventional heads is awarded correctly by the
High Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not
find any merit in this Civil Appeal and the same
is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
10. While issuing notice, this Court vide order
dated 18.02.2019 granted stay of enforcement of
the impugned judgment, subject to condition of
depositing the lumpsum compensation of Rs.25
Lakhs before the Tribunal with a direction to
deposit the same in an interest earning Fixed
3
2009 (6) SCC 121
4
2017 (16) SCC 680
9
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019
Deposit in a Nationalised bank. The said amount
shall be paid to the respondents–claimants with
accrued interest. The balance amount payable by
the appellant–Insurance Company shall be paid
within a period of two months from today.
………………………………………………………J
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
………………………………………………………J
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
NEW DELHI;
October 01, 2021
10
