Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Mamatha vs R. Ranganath on 27 July, 2016

Bench: Dipak Misra, Rohinton Fali Nariman

     CA 3784/2015
                                                                1

                                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.3784 OF 2015


                         Mamatha and Others                                           Appellant(s)

                                              Versus

                         R. Ranganath and Others                                      Respondent(s)

                                                                    WITH

                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.3778 OF 2015


                         The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                             Appellant(s)

                                              Versus

                         Mamatha and Others                                           Respondent(s)


                                                               O R D E R

Civil Appeal No.3778 of 2015 is preferred by the insurer, the New India Assurance Company Limited, assailing the common judgment and order passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2236 of 2010 (MV), whereby the High Court has enhanced the compensation granted to the legal representatives of the deceased and quantified it at Rs.42,14,000/-. Be it stated, the tribunal had granted Rs.18,63,882/-. The High Court while enhancing the quantum, did not deduct the amount, though claimed by the insurance company on the basis of the policy. The non-deduction has affected the insurer and that is why it has preferred the Signature Not Verified present appeal.

Mr. C.K. Gola, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, would submit that the High Court has gravely erred in not deducting the amount in question. For the said CA 3784/2015 2 purpose, he has placed reliance on the authority in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another (1999) 1 SCC 90. Ordinarily, we would have proceeded to debate on the applicability of the said decision, but Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants very fairly stated that the said decision would be applicable to the facts of this case. However, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amount that has been enhanced by the High Court is not in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court, for the High Court has calculated the amount on the basis of the annual salary after deductions determined at Rs.3,57,250/-. Learned counsel has referred us to the salary certificate which has been been brought on record before the tribunal vide Exhibit-17.

In our considered opinion, the High Court has erroneously calculated the amount. On a proper calculation, the salary on which the compensation should be computed would be Rs.5,44,392/-. The deceased was thirty years old and left behind his wife, one child and his father. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has also added future prospects, but as advised at present, we are not inclined to include the future prospects. As the multiplier of seventeen would apply, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.61,69,776/- (5,44,392x17x2/3). We have been apprised that a sum of Rs.27,21,960 has already been paid to the claimant-wife under the Group Personal Accident Claim policy.

In our considered opinion, the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest and the amount that has already been deposited and paid should be included. The balance amount should be deposited before the tribunal within eight weeks hence along with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application preferred before the tribunal.

The amount shall be disbursed by the tribunal keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Others (1994) 2 SCC 176.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

......................J. (Dipak Misra) ......................J. (Rohinton Fali Nariman) New Delhi;

July 27, 2016.

ITEM NO.8                    COURT NO.4                 SECTION IVA

                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F         I N D I A
                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                        Civil Appeal No.3784/2015

MAMATHA & ORS                                             Appellant(s)
                                     VERSUS

R. RANGANATH & ORS                                        Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No.3778/2015

(With interim relief and office report) Date : 27/07/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Vasishtha, Adv.

                       Mr.   Anup Jain, AOR

CA 3778/2015           Mr. C.K. Gola, Adv.
                       Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR
                       Mr. Akshay Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      Mr.   S.L. Gupta, AOR
                       Mr.   M.K. Thakur, Adv.
                       Mr.   Varinder Kr. Sharma, AOR
                       Ms.   Mala Dubey, Adv.

                       Mr. C.K. Gola, Adv.
                       Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR

                       Mr. S.L. Gupta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

               (Chetan Kumar)                    (H.S. Parasher)
                Court Master                       Court Master

(Signed order is placed on the file)