Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Savita vs The State Of Maharashtra Maharashtra ... on 5 December, 2017
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21822 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14233/2017)
SAVITA & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)
:Versus:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER … RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal justifiability of the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in MFA No.201210 of 2015(MV), whereby it has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII, Bizapur (Vijyapur), determining the compensation amount of Rs.8,51,000/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Signature Not Verified The Tribunal did not provide any interest on the medical bills amount Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2017.12.13 17:24:41 TLT Reason: of Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand).
3. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence has held that the 2 accident occurred on 23.08.2013 resulting in death of Santosh who was riding motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/BJ-2733 along with pillion riders, on account of rash and negligent driving of the transport bus of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bearing No.MH-14/BT-0575. That finding has been affirmed by the High Court. The High Court also affirmed the computation of compensation amount by the Tribunal quantified at Rs.8,51,000/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand). The Tribunal in paragraph no. 13 of the judgment took into account notional income of deceased Santosh, who was an agriculturist and also doing other work, at Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) per month; and considering his age of 34 years coupled with the fact that there were 4 dependent members in the family, provided deduction towards personal and living expenses to the extent of 1/4 th and applied multiplier of 16 for determining the compensation amount.
4. The Tribunal also provided the addition towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, and loss of consortium in the aggregate amount of Rs.90,000/- (Ninety Thousand). In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses besides the medical expenses quantified at Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand Rupees).
5. The appellants have prayed for enhancement of the 3 compensation amount. The respondent has opposed this appeal inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal at Bizapur (Vijyapur) had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Besides, it is contended that the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is just and proper.
6. We have heard Mr. Sumant Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that the respondent did not object to the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII, Bizapur (Vijyapur) at the first instance. This fact has been noted even by the High Court. We are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the High Court – that it was not open to the respondent to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction at such a belated stage.
7. The fact that the accident had occurred on account of negligent driving of the bus driver is substantiated from the record and has been so found by two courts below. Similarly, the finding regarding the notional income of the deceased taken as Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees) per month as also his age on the date of accident to be around 34 years and left behind 4 (four) dependents in his family, is also unexceptional. The only issue that needs to be addressed in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation 4 determined by the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction towards personal and living expenses to the extent of 1/4th with multiplier at 16. Accordingly, the loss of dependency determined by the Tribunal, as upheld by the High Court, to the extent of Rs.7,20,000/- (Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand) needs no interference.
8. The Tribunal, however, has granted additional amount towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium. In view of the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vesus Pranay Sethi and Ors.1, the appellants would be entitled for an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects. The appellants will be also entitled to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand), Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand) and Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) respectively. The appellants would also be entitled to an amount towards medical expenses determined by the Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice it would be appropriate to grant additional aggregate amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs) to the appellants. That will satisfy all the claims put forth by the appellants in all respects.
1 (2017) 13 Scale 12 [SLP (C) No.25590/2014 and connected matters decided on 31.10.2017] 5
9. Accordingly, an additional aggregate amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs) is awarded to the appellants with the stipulation that the same shall be deposited within eight weeks hence, before the Tribunal, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition before the Tribunal. The amount shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants on proper identification.
10. With the aforesaid modification in the award passed by the Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra) …………………………..….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar) …………………………..….J. (D.Y. Chandrachud) New Delhi;
5th December, 2017.
6
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV-A
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).14233/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-11-2016 in MFA No.201210/2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi) SAVITA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER Respondent(s) Date : 05-12-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sumant Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr.Preetam Shah, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr.Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Rahul Baid, Adv.
Mr.J.N.Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Chetan Kumar ) (H.S.Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed non-reportable order is placed on the file)