Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Manjit Kaur on 30 April, 2025
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24459-24460 OF 2019)
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S)._______OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 27502 OF 2019)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals by the insurer and the claimants are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh rendered in FAO No. 2571 of 1998 dated 28.02.2019 whereunder the claimants appeal for enhancement was allowed in part and the plea of the insurer that the taxable income of the deceased was 50,000 Canadian Dollars Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.06 17:02:22 IST Reason: 1 (“CAD”) per year and not 54,899 CAD was partly accepted and being aggrieved by the same the insurer is in appeal. Whereas the claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by High Court have also preferred the present appeal challenging the same and are seeking further enhancement.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records.
(I) What is the actual income of the deceased that is to be considered for the purposes of determination of compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’?
(II) What is the conversion rate which requires to be applied and from which date?
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
4. Mr. Jaipal Singh Walia, a permanent resident of Canada who was self-employed and running a company under the name and style of “View Point Sand Gravel Limited Canada”, had visited India in the year 1996 and 2 while travelling from Phagwara to Mohali on 14.04.1996 accompanied by his wife and three children at 03:00 pm was crossing village Garhi Qanungoan, the offending vehicle namely, car bearing registration No. WB- 02-A-1267 coming from a wrong direction dashed against the car bearing No. HR 29-C 7337 driven by Mr. Jaipal Singh and as a result of the said accident, Mr. Jaipal Singh received grievous injuries and other inmates of the vehicle received minor injuries. After being administered the first-aid at civil hospital Nawan Shahar, they were referred to PGI Chandigarh. On account of the grievous injuries sustained Mr. Jaipal Singh Walia expired. His wife, 3 children and mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 4 crores. The insurer and the insured (claimants) on being notified appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statements and denied the averments made in the petition in its entirety, except to the extent expressly admitted therein. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, formulated the issues for its determination and after evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, by its judgment and award dated 17.07.1998, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,74,400 with interest at 12% p.a. 3
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, claimants preferred an appeal for enhancement of the compensation contending inter alia that computation of the monthly income at Rs. 4,000 per month in Indian Rupees was erroneous and also the finding that claimants had failed to place on record material revealing the conversion rate of Canadian Dollars into Indian Rupee. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence held that income tax returns attested by the Consulate General of India, Vancouver (Canada) had been tendered and there being no contra evidence, the tribunal had erred in arriving at the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month and it held that the income of the deceased is to be assessed at 4,200 CAD per month. It also held that having regard to the fact there were 5 dependents, 1/4th of the deceased’s income was to be deducted towards personal & living expenses and after deducting the same and by awarding of further sum of Rs. 1,10,000 towards funeral expenses, loss of parental & fililial consortium and loss of estate, awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,77,000 with interest @ 7.5% from date of claim petition till payment, by judgment and award dated 28.02.2019. An application under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying for correcting/modifying the order dated 28.02.2019 to the extent of replacing the word “Rupees” with “Canadian Dollars” came to be filed on the ground that High Court had enhanced the compensation taking into consideration the 4 salary of the deceased was in Canadian Dollars and not in Indian Rupees. The High Court by order dated 13.05.2019 allowed the application CM No. 10533-C2 of 2019 in FAO No.2571 of 1998 and held that the amount of Rs. 5,67,000 awarded towards loss of dependency by order dated 28.02.2019 be read as 5,67,000/- CAD. Hence, these two appeals.
6. The insurer has filed the Civil Appeal No.___ arising out of SLP Nos.24459-60 of 2019 contending inter alia that the income earned from the proprietary concern of the deceased would continue to accrue to the dependents and there is no loss of dependency. It is further contended that the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed in her evidence that the firm was still in existence and as such there would be no loss of income to the claimants as the business of late Shri Jaipal Singh Walia was not closed. It is also contended that the High Court was not justified in holding that the compensation awarded in Canadian Dollars the conversion or foreign exchange rate prevailing at the date of filing of the claim petition would not be applicable but at the rate prevalent on the date of the appeal being disposed of. He would also contend that the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable compensation which did not call for enhancement by the High Court. 5
7. Whereas the claimants in the Civil Appeal No. _ arising out of SLP No.27502 of 2019 have contended that the Tribunal as well as the High Court have erred in not considering the future prospects of the deceased while awarding loss of dependency; and it has been erroneously held that the income of the deceased was 50,000 Canadian Dollars ignoring the 3 income tax returns of the deceased filed for the year 1994, 1995 and 1996; and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the High Court for reduction of interest from 12% awarded by the tribunal to 7.5% that too when the insurer had not challenged the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal. He would also contend that High Court has rightly held that executing court would convert the compensation of 5,63,000 CAD to Indian currency at rate prevalent on the date appeal is being decided.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we notice from the records that the issue relating to the occurrence of the accident wherein Mr. Jaipal Singh sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death, the driver of the offending vehicle having driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, as well as the policy to the said vehicle having been issued by the insurer namely the third respondent in the appeal filed by the claimants i.e., United India Insurance Company Ltd and the said policy being in force 6 as on the date of the accident are all undisputed facts which has also been delved upon by the tribunal in detail which are not in serious dispute and as such we desist from embarking upon narrating these facts as it would only be burdensome to this judgment.
RE Point No:I
9. The deceased Mr. Jaipal Singh Walia was running a firm under the name and style of “View Point Sand Gravel Ltd. Canada” and earning income from the said company which was personal to him. He was a permanent resident of Canada and was filing the income tax returns before the Canadian authorities. The income tax returns filed before the said authorities for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 came to be tendered in the evidence of PW-2 i.e., the wife of the deceased and marked as exhibit P-24, 27 and 30, according to which income of the deceased was CAD 48,000, 60,000 and 70,000 (20,000 + 50,000) for the respective years. It is this income which was earned by the deceased which is deprived to the claimants namely, the wife, children and mother of the deceased and as such they are to be awarded just and reasonable compensation based on the said income tax returns of the deceased which has stood unrebutted. In that view of the matter the plea of 7 the insurer that the company (i.e., View Point Sand Gravel Ltd.) that firm has continued to be in existence and there is no loss of income to the claimants does not hold water and it stands rejected. This Court in National Insurance Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 16 SCC 680) has held that even in case of self- employed person, the grant of future prospects for calculating just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of future income ought to be taken into consideration has been completely ignored by both the Courts, and as such, we do not subscribe to the views expressed by the courts below and hold that the claimants are entitled to seek for addition of 40% of the income of the deceased as deceased was aged 38 years at the time of his death. Though rival contentions have been raised with regard to the income of the deceased, the un-rebutted evidence namely, the income tax returns Ex. P24, P27 and P30 for the years 1993 to 1995 would reflect the income as noticed herein supra and the sum total for the three years would be 1,78,000 CAD and the average income of the three years, would be 59,333.33 CAD which can be rounded off to 59,500 CAD. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. RE Point No:II 8
10. This Court in Jiju Kuruvila & Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. 1 has held that foreign exchange rate as prevailing on the date of filing of the claim petition would be applicable for purpose of conversion. The said pronouncement has been discussed in DLF Ltd. Vs. Koncar Generators and Motors Ltd.2 wherein it was observed in cases of motor accident death where the deceased was earning in foreign currency, the Court has refused to reckon the date of judgment as the proper date and instead has used the date of filing of the claim petition for the purposes of date of conversion rate. The said issue in no more res integra. We have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the conversion rate is to be adopted as on the date of filing of the claim petition, which in the instant case was 16.09.1996. Even according to the insurer, the rate of conversion of Canadian Dollar as in the year 1996 was Rupees 30 (thirty). In the light of this unequivocal admission of the insurer the rate of Canadian Dollar is on the year 1996 being Rupees 30 (thirty), we adopt the same and re-determine the compensation payable to the claimants.
11. Hence the following factors would be relevant for the compensation payable to the claimants:
1 2013 9 SCC 166 2 2024 SCC Online SC 1907 9
(a) Income as per Income Tax Returns Ex. P.24 – 1993 48,000 CAD Ex. P.23 – 1994 60,000 CAD Ex. P.30 – 1995 70,000 CAD Sum total for 3 years 1,78,000 CAD The average per year would be 59,333.33 CAD i.e., 1,78,000%3.
We round it off to 59,500/- CAD
(b) The conversion rate of the Canadian Dollars on the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 16.09.1996 was Rs. 30. Hence, the income would be taken as 59,500 CAD x Rs 30 = Rs. 17,85,000/- (Annual Income in Indian Rupees)
(c) 40% towards future prospects is added.
(d) Since dependents are 5 in number 1/4 th is deducted towards personal and living expenses.
12. Accordingly, the compensation is computed as per the table below:
S.NO. HEADS AMOUNT
I. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 2,81,13,750
i. Income 17,85,000
10
ii. Add 40% (i.e., 7,14,000)
[17,85,000 + 7,14,000] 24,99,000
iii. Deduct ¼ towards personal
and living expenses (i.e.,
6,24,750/-)
[24,99,000 – 6,24,750] 18,74,250
iv. Multiplier of 15 is adopted
as age of the deceased was
38 years
[i.e., 18,74,250 x 15] 2,81,13,750
II. SPOUSAL CONSORTIUM (wife of deceased) Rs. 48,400/-
III. PARENTAL CONSORTIUM (3 minor children of deceased) [Rs. 48,400 x 3] Rs.
1,45,200/-
IV. FILIAL CONSORTIUM (mother of deceased) Rs. 48,400/-
V. LOSS OF ESTATE Rs. 18,150/-
VI. FUNERAL EXPENSES Rs. 18,150/-
VII. TOTAL Rs.2,83,92,
050/-
11
13. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. In substitution to the judgment and award, passed by the High Court, we award a sum of Rs. 2,83,92,050/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. by making it clear that the conversion rate would be as prevailing on the date of filing of the claim petition. The insurer shall deposit the balance amount awarded with proportionate interest before the jurisdictional tribunal within 8 weeks from today.
14. We make no order as to costs and all pending applications stand disposed off.
……………………………., J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ] ……………………………., J.
[ ARAVIND KUMAR ] New Delhi;
April 30, 2025.
12
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV
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) Nos. 24459-24460/2019 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-02-2019 in FAO No. 2571/1998 13-05-2019 in CM No. 10534/2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh] THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS MANJIT KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 158324/2021 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER) WITH S.L.P. (C) No. 27502 of 2019 (IV) Date : 30-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
13 Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
14