Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Ashish Ravindra Kulkarni on 23 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9410-9411/2019
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ASHISH RAVINDRA KULKARNI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1934-1935 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C)Nos.5825-5826 of 2023 @ Dy No.28020/2019)
J U D G M E N T
Delay condoned in SLP (C)Dy.No.28020/2019.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
The fact relating to the accident having occurred and the father of the respondent no. 1 who was also the son of respondent nos. 2 and 3 having expired in the said accident is not in dispute. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (For short `MACT’) while taking note of all aspects of the matter has through its award dated 28.7.2015 awarded the sum of Rs.2,50,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein as also the insurance company were before the High Court assailing the award Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2023.03.27 passed by the MACT.
17:36:05 ISTReason: 1 The claimants were seeking enhancement of the compensation while the insurance company was seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT. The High Court having considered the appeals together, through its common judgment dated 30.11.2019 has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,56,21,568/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants was allowed in part. The appellants have acceded to the judgment of the High Court in accepting the quantum enhanced while the Insurance Company is assailing the same in so far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, in this appeal. The owner of the offending vehicle is in the analogous appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company while seeking reduction of the amount awarded by the High Court would contend that the salary as reckoned by the High Court at 11,153 Singapore Dollars is not justified. It is contended that the tax on the same has not been deducted to take into consideration the actual loss of dependency and therefore there should be a reduction. Further, it is also the case on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that since the deceased was residing in Singapore, the deduction towards self expenses made at one-third is not justified and the deduction should be at 50% since the expenses are more than what is incurred than which is incurred, if in India.
It is also his case that the future prospects as reckoned at 30% is not justified and the same should have been at 25% since the job of the deceased cannot be considered as permanent employment. 2 Lastly, it is contended the interest as fixed by the High Court at 7.5% per annum is excessive and is without appropriate reason being assigned.
The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would however seek to sustain the judgment passed by the High Court. On all the aspects which have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is contended that the MACT as well as the High Court have looked into the evidence which was available before it and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion, which does not call for interference.
In the light of the contentions put forth, insofar as the salary, we take note that by way of clarification, we had required the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants to point out that the amount paid was after deduction of the tax or proof for payment of tax, since the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the same has not been done. Alongwith an application, in addition to the documents that were relied on before the MACT, the notice of assessment of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore is produced. From the same, it would indicate that from the salary paid to the deceased, tax has been assessed in Singapore. Hence, there is no scope for double taxation on the same income. Therefore, deducting any amount towards tax once over again would not arise. Hence, his salary as reckoned by the High Court is justified and the same does not call for interference.
On the aspect relating to the future prospects, having noted the salary that was being drawn by the deceased, we have also taken into consideration that the deceased was employed in TATA Precision 3 Industries. Another employee who was working as the Assistant Manager in Human Resources had been examined as PW-2 before the MACT to prove the same. In that regard, taking note of the evidence tendered by PW-2 to indicate the nature of employment of the deceased as also his prospects, we are of the opinion that the future prospects as reckoned in the instant case is also justified. This is for the reason that though the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to point to the portion of the cross-examination of the said witness to indicate that he had earlier been terminated from TATA Holset Private Limited and had thereafter been appointed in TATA Precision Industries, it would not lead to a conclusion that the job was not of permanent nature. In fact, even if the employment letter indicated that the job could be terminated with 30 days notice as insisted by the learned counsel, that cannot be the basis in as much as the said provision for termination notice would be available to both the parties, namely the employer and the employee and that by itself cannot indicate that the employment was of a temporary nature. Right of the employer to terminate does not suggest it is temporary employment. Such right if exercised has to be in terms of law. Further, from the cross-examination, the suggestion put to PW-2, would only indicate that the deceased who was earlier employed in TATA Holset Private Limited was thereafter taken in another sister concern of the same group providing him better prospects. Therefore even if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the future prospects as reckoned by the High Court is justified.
4 On the aspect relating to the deduction of self expenses, though learned counsel for the appellant has sought to rely on the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 with specific reference to paragraph 37.7 to contend that it has been indicated therein that 50% of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards living expenses in a foreign country, the fact situation in the instant case would indicate that the said judgment would not be applicable herein. Learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of Ramla & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Reported in (2019) 2 SCC 192 with specific reference to paragraph 4 but the said decision also would not be of assistance. This is for the reason that in the instant case, from the very details of the income of the deceased it is seen that 2,500 Singapore Dollars was being paid to the deceased towards house allowance which would take care of the major portion of the expenses relating to lodging. Hence, all that was required to be expended by the deceased in the instant case is towards his self expenses towards food and other personal requirements. Therefore in the instant facts the deduction of 1/3rd was justified. In any event, there is no contrary evidence available on record. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that no interference is required with the judgment of the High Court in that regard and on all the above noted aspects.
However, on the aspect relating to the interest, we note that the High Court on enhancing the compensation has without appropriate reasons indicated that the interest payable is at 7.5% per annum from the date of the application before the MACT. 5 Therefore, we clarify that the interest at 7.5% per annum would be only towards the portion of the compensation which was awarded by the High Court by way of enhancement. To that extent, we clarify that insofar as the compensation of Rs.2,50,60,000/- awarded by the MACT, the same shall be paid with interest @ 6% per annum. Insofar as the enhanced portion amounting to Rs.2,05,61,568/- the same shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the judgment rendered by the High Court. The amount shall be quantified and the balance of the compensation payable shall be deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company, before the MACT within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In terms of the above, the appeals stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………J. [A.S. BOPANNA] ………………….……………………………………….J. [HIMA KOHLI] NEW DELHI;
MARCH 23, 2023
6
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.12 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 9410-9411/2019
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHISH RAVINDRA KULKARNI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 151522/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES AND IA No. 128394/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) WITH Diary No(s). 28020/2019 (IX) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 41125/2020, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/ CURING THE DEFECTS ON IA 41126/2020 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 41128/2020) Date : 23-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Parties Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Rohit K Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Biju Thankappen, AOR Mr. Vishwanath S Talkute, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned in SLP (C)Dy.No.28020/2019.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers. The appeals stand disposed of in terms of signed order. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7