Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mamta vs Bhav Singh@ Mansingh on 11 October, 2022
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, V. Ramasubramanian
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7176 OF 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.32805 of 2018)
Mamta & Ors. ...Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Bhav Singh @ Mansingh & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
(2) The appellants are the wife, children etc. of one Vinod Rajak. Vinod Rajak died in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 15.12.2011. Therefore, the appellants filed Claim Case No.40 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) seeking a total compensation of Rs.43,20,000/-. The respondent-Insurance Company had entered appearance and opposed the claim petition.
(3) On the basis of the materials placed on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH also the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal held Date: 2022.10.21 16:59:47 IST Reason: that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,11,750/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
(4) The appeal, M.A. No.956 of 2013, filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, was partly allowed. The High Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,73,058/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
(5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. (6) Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the deceased was also negligent and responsible for the accident to an extent of 50%. It was also argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court is on a lower side. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned order of the High Court.
(7) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on the record.
(8) As noticed above, the accident had occurred on 15.12.2011. It is clear from the materials on record that on the fateful day, the deceased was driving dumper of his owner and was going to Bhitarvar after unloading the soil at the Harsi Canal. During this time, the owner of the offending dumper who was driving the same himself was going ahead of the deceased, had suddenly stopped his dumper in a negligent manner without giving any signal by which the dumper driven by the deceased dashed to the offending dumper. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. Immediately after the accident, PW-2 lodged a report at Exhibit-4 against the driver of the offending dumper. The dumper of the accused was seized from the spot and its driver was arrested. (9) It is settled law that contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant’s part which has materially contributory to the damage caused. Negligence ordinarily means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong.
(10) No material has been produced by the respondent to substantiate that the deceased was responsible for the accident in any manner. Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal as also the High Court were not justified in holding that the deceased was also responsible for the accident. (11) The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the materials placed on record, it is just and proper to hold the income of the deceased of Rs.8,000/- per month. One-fourth of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The multiplier applicable to the case of the deceased is “18”. The appellants are entitled to 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the compensation as under:
1. Annual Income of Rs.8000 x 12 = 96,000/-
the deceased (per annum)
2. Future Prospects 40% added (96,000 + 38,400) =Rs.1,34,400/-
3. Deductions towards 1/4th (1,34,400 – 33,600) =Rs.1,00,800/-
personal expenses 4. Multiplier 18
5. Loss of Dependency 1,00,800 x 18 = Rs.18,14,400/-
6. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 + (10% increase) = Rs.44,000/-
each, depending on number of dependents (Wife, 2 children and mother), therefore total Rs.1,76,000/-
7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000+(10% increase) = Rs.16,500/-
8. Funeral Expesnes Rs.15,000+(10% increase) = Rs.16,500/-
9. Total Rs.20,23,400/-
Compensation (11) The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,23,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum after deducting the amount deposited by it. The deposit shall be made with the Tribunal within four weeks from today. (12) The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. (13) Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………..................J. [S.ABDUL NAZEER] ……………........................J. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN] New Delhi;
October 11, 2022.
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32805/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-03-2018 in MA No. 956/2013 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior) MAMTA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BHAV SINGH@ MANSINGH & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 11-10-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Reepak Kausal, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed of in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)