Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gurpreet Kaur vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 27 September, 2022
Bench: Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6981-82 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.30364-30365 of 2019)
GURPREET KAUR & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant – claimants are aggrieved by the order
dated 24.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh whereby the compensation of Rs.43,75,000/-, awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the
Tribunal’), has been substantially reduced to Rs.16,57,600/-.
3. The deceased – Pyara Singh was the husband of appellant
No.1, father of appellant Nos.2 to 3 i.e. the minor children, and
son of appellant Nos.4 to 5 i.e. his mother and father.
4. On 12.11.2014, when Pyara Singh was driving his
motorcycle bearing No.PB-39E-2372 along with his friend Mukhtiar
Singh (pillion rider), a JCB bearing registration No.HR-45A-1630,
driven by respondent No.2 – Sanjay came from the opposite side of
the road and crashed into the motorcycle. As a result of the
Signature Not Verified
accident, Pyara Singh sustained multiple injuries which led to his
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2022.09.28
18:16:45 IST
Reason:
instant death. His friend Mukhtiar Singh was also severely injured.
5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 25 years’ old
2
and was hale and hearty. He was stated to be working as a
contractor for lifting of earth and was earning Rs.50,000/- per
month. It has also come on record that the deceased had purchased
a Tractor bearing registration No.HR-05-AL-3294 for which he had
taken a loan of Rs.3,90,533/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The
deceased was regularly paying the monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/-
towards the tractor’s loan from 10.03.2014 onwards and the entire
loan liability was discharged by 24.03.2015 with payment being made
even after his death.
6. Keeping in mind the rate at which EMI was being paid, the
Tribunal held that the deceased must be earning at least
Rs.25,000/- per month prior to his death in the accident. After
taking ¼th of monthly income of the deceased towards personal
expenses, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and assessed the
total compensation as Rs.43,75,000/-. The High Court,
unfortunately, overlooked the factors relied upon by the Tribunal
to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per
month. The High Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact
that the deceased had paid instalments of the loan could not itself
be an evidence that the money actually represented his income or
can form the basis for assessment of income of the deceased at
Rs.25,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the Notification
issued by the State of Haryana, fixing minimum wage at the relevant
time, the High Court assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- per month, and on this premise, as stated above, the
compensation was reduced.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
3
parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the
income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of
P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,
it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making
the payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan
liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was
paid back within a year or so. That clearly establishes the
earning capacity of the deceased. It is also the case of the
appellants-claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor
and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a
balanced approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the
payment of monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the
tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor
children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv)
that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income
at Rs.25,000/- per month.
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal’s approach is quite
justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings
where the approach of the Tribunal’s determination must be in
conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was
rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be
less than Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to
reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and
has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a
guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to
evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence
4
has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed,
particularly when it was nobody’s case that the deceased was a
labourer as presumed by the High Court.
10. For the reasons aforestated, we are inclined to allow
these appeals. Ordered accordingly.
11. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 24.09.2019
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set
aside and the Award dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Karnal is restored. The appellants are held to be
entitled to the compensation in accordance with the Tribunal’s
Award. The balance amount, after adjusting the amount which has
already been paid, shall be deposited along with interest before
the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Tribunal shall
disburse the said compensation amount to the appellants as per its
Award.
12. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory
application also stands disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-B
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).30364-30365/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-09-2019
in FAO No.3113/2016 and FAO No.6922/2016 passed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
GURPREET KAUR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
([MACT MATTER]
IA No.196335/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 27-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
Ms. Dilmrig Nayani, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bathija, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Mehta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)