Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jeyarani vs The Manager Bajaj Allianz General ... on 10 July, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4310-4311 OF 2023
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 3857-3858/2020)
JEYARANI & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL Respondent(s)
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted
2. The appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as against the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’). The fact that an accident had occurred on 21.11.2013, is not in dispute. The MACT, through its award dated 17.02.2017, had awarded a sum of Rs. 9,97,600/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said compensation being awarded, the Insurance Company as also the claimants were before the High Court. The High Court through its common judgment dated 26.11.2018 though, had enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,67,800/-, but had reduced 20% from the said compensation holding that the deceased had Signature Not Verified contributed Digitally signed by to the accident to the extent of 20% and Nisha Khulbey Date: 2023.07.11 17:55:16 IST therefore, the sum of Rs.8,54,240/- was awarded. Reason:
2
3. The only issues which arise for consideration in these appeals are with regard to the aspect of contributory negligence, and also the appropriate income to be taken for the purpose of calculation of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. On the aspect relating to contributory negligence though, the High Court had referred to the decisions/judgments of this Court, we also take note of the decision/judgment of this Court dated 08.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 wherein, the aspect which is under consideration in the instant appeals, was specifically dealt with, and has been held that there should be specific evidence with regard to negligence even if an additional pillion was being carried on the two-wheeler, which is the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling while the accident took place.
4. In that background, a perusal of the award in the instant case would indicate that P.W.2 was examined as an eye witness, and a finding has been rendered by the Tribunal that as per the evidence of the said eye witness (P.W.2), there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler. As against the same, there is no rebuttal evidence to indicate the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler. Therefore, in that circumstance, the High Court could not have arrived at the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler. Hence, to that extent, the finding holding contributory negligence is set aside. 3
5. On the aspect of the quantum of compensation, it is noted that the claim, as put forth by P.W.1 and P.W.2, is that the deceased was working as a mason and was earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. It is no doubt true that there is no specific evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. In a matter of the present nature where the deceased was working as a mason, it would not be appropriate to expect any documentary evidence. However, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident being 2013, reckoning the daily wage at Rs.300/- cannot be said to be excessive. If that be so, the monthly income of the deceased could be reckoned at Rs.9,000/-. 40% of the same i.e. Rs.3,600/- is to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the income could be taken at Rs.12,600/-. 50% of the same is to be deducted towards self expenses and as such, the monthly loss of dependency would be in a sum of Rs.6,300/-. On applying the multiplier of ‘18’ and taking it on the annual basis, would be in a sum of Rs.13,60,800/-. Rs.70,000/- is added towards conventional heads. Hence, the total amount of compensation would be in a sum of Rs.14,30,800/-. From the said amount, if the total amount, as worked out by the High court at Rs.10,67,800/- is deducted, the appellants would be entitled to Rs. 3,63,000/- as enhanced compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition before the MACT till the date of the payment.
4
6. The compensation shall be worked out in the aforesaid terms and be deposited before the MACT within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment whereupon the amount shall be disbursed to the claimants.
7. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms along with the pending application(s), if any.
...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) New Delhi 10th July, 2023 5 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.7 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). 3857-3858/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-11-2018 in CMA No. 2662/2018 26-11-2018 in CMA No. 2517/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras) JEYARANI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL Respondent(s) INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
Date : 10-07-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.v.jagdishvaran, Adv.
Mr. Harnaman Singh, Adv. Mr. Gandeepan, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Srishty Kaul, Adv.
Mr. Harish Nadda, Adv.
Mr. Vikalp Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Rishab Singh, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Vieraj K. Anand, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any, in terms of the signed order.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)