Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Laxmi Devi Alias Lichhi vs Mehboob Ali on 25 August, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2023
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 30423/2019)
LAXMI DEVI ALIAS LICHHI & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MEHBOOB ALI & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein, are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 06.01.2019 passed by the High Court whereby, the High Court though has computed the compensation at Rs.3,60,000/-, has awarded only 50% of the same i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/-, holding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of 50%. In that background, though, there is no dispute with regard to the accident having occurred on 31.12.2007 and the death Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey having occurred in the said accident, the aspect Date: 2023.08.29 14:22:15 IST Reason: which arise for consideration in the instant appeal is with regard to the aspect of negligence and the 2 quantum of compensation to be awarded.
3. Firstly, with regard to the negligence, as held, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) itself would indicate the manner in which the accident had occurred and as rightly observed both by the MACT as well as by the High Court, the accident having taken place during the month of December after it was dark, certainly, the visibility would be poor. In that circumstance, when it was a case where the truck (offending vehicle) was parked on middle of the road and the deceased had not noticed it as there was no clear indication or signal, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the deceased as he could notice the vehicle (the truck) only when he had approached the same.
4. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that the conclusion, as reached, both by the MACT and the High Court that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50% is not justified. Furthermore, when there was no explanation on the part of the driver of the truck by examining him with regard to the manner in which the accident had occurred, we are of the 3 opinion that the entire negligence is to be fastened on the driver of the truck (the offending vehicle).
5. On the aspect of the quantum of compensation, we note that in the absence of definite evidence for the income of the deceased, the High Court has the reckoned the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. In a normal circumstance, in respect of an unskilled labour, such assumption could have been justified. In the instant facts, the case, as put forth by the claimants is that the deceased was doing the business in bangles and if, this aspect as also the aspect relating to the number of dependents on the deceased is taken note, in any event, reckoning an income of Rs.200/- per day cannot be considered as excessive.
6. Therefore, in that circumstance, it would be appropriate to reckon the income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month and award 25% of the same towards future prospects, which would be in a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. Hence, the total of Rs.7,500/- is reckoned. One-fifth of the same would be deducted towards self expenses, which would be in a sum of Rs. 1500/-. Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,000/- per month. If the same is taken on annual basis and multiplier of ‘15’ is applied, it will be 4 in a sum of Rs.10,80,000/-. Towards the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded. Hence, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- which if deducted, the balance of Rs.7,90,000/-shall be payable as enhancement with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition before the MACT till the date of payment.
7. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.
...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) New Delhi 25th August, 2023 5 ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV 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). 30423/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-01-2019 in SBCMA No. 4317/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur) LAXMI DEVI ALIAS LICHHI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MEHBOOB ALI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 25-08-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Nigam, Adv.
Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Nigam, Adv.
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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)