Supreme Court - Daily Orders
V. Selvaraj vs Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd on 1 September, 2014
Bench: J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8430 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 39510/2013)
V. SELVARAJ & ANR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD & ANR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellants' son(the deceased) was walking along with his brother-in-law on the Madurai Raod, in order to go to his college. When he reached Chatraraeddiapatti traffic junction, the respondent nos. 2's car, which was coming in the opposite direction and was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased and caused injuries to his head, right arm, and he also sustained injuries all over his body.
On 20.6.2008, the appellants filed a claim under Sections 140, 142, 166 read with Rule 3(1) of the MACT Rules before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% from the date of accident.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Mansukhani Date: 2014.09.04 18:06:07 IST Reason:The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its judgment 1 and decree dated 24.07.2009 came to the conclusion that the deceased being a 3rd year engineering student, could have earned Rs. 8,000 per month and deducting 1/3rd of his income for his personal expenses held that the deceased would have contributed Rs. 5,350 per month to the appellants. The Tribunal, on adopting a multiplier of '17' awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,91,400 to the appellants under the head of loss of income and Rs. 10,000 under the head of loss of love and affection.
The Tribunal directed the respondents to jointly or severally deposit the said sum of Rs. 11,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Respondent no. 1 then approached the High Court. The High Court held that there is a shortcoming in the findings given by the Tribunal regarding the quantum of compensation. The High Court held that the notional income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs. 15,000 per annum, since he was an Engineering student who was studying in the 3rd year. The Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- under the head of loss of income; Rs. 50,000/- each is awarded to each of the claimants under the head of loss of love and affetion, Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000 is awarded transport expenses and Rs. 4,00,000 is awarded under the head of loss of estate, since the deceased was a 3 rd year Engineering student and after one year, he would get into a highly paid field as an Engineer. In total, the Court awarded a sum of Rs. 6,47,500/- as compensation to the 2 appellants.
Challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court, appellants have preferred the instant appeal submitting that there was no reason to reduce the amount of compensation as awarded by MACT and in fact the appellant had claimed much more than awarded by MACT.
The admitted facts are that the son of the appellant was an Engineering student who was studying in the third year. In these circumstances, treating his notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum by the High Court, which comes to Rs. 1250/- per month, we feel that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month fixed by MACT was on the lower side. However, at the same time, the Tribunal deducted only one third of his income on the ground that he was still an unmarried person.
Learned counsel for the respondent may be right that in such circumstances, the salary fixed should have been deducted by half. After giving this deduction, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,350/- per month. However, as mentioned above, the income of Rs. 8,000/- is on the lower side which should have been treated as more than Rs. 10,000/- and even if 50% therefrom is deducted, the net amount would come to same as fixed by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs. 5,350/- per month. For these reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court and restore the amount of payment granted by the MACT awarding the compensation of Rs. 10,91,400/-
3with interest as granted by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however be no order as to costs.
….....................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) …....................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 4 ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII 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). 39510/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/01/2013 in CMA No. 185/2010 passed by the High Court Of Madras) V. SELVARAJ & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD & ANR Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 01/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.S. Gnana Sambandan, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv.
Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (SAROJ SAINI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
6