Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mithilesh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 10 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.27742775/2023
(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.71487149/2022)
MITHILESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation as against the sum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and thereafter enhanced by the High Court. The appellants have also assailed the conclusion reached by the Courts below holding that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 30% in contributing for the accident to occur.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the ap peal papers. In respect of an accident which had occurred on 0108 1998, the appellants, who are the wife and children of the deceased were before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The M.A.C.T. through its Award dated 31032001 had arrived at the compensation of Rs.3,07,200/ but awarded reduced amount, taking the contributory negligence at 30% and awarded a sum of Rs.2,19,240/. Signature Not Verified The High Court though had arrived at the figure of Rs.5,14,080/ Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2023.04.13 17:47:11 IST Reason: awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,856/ being 70% of the amount. 2
4. While taking note of the claim for enhancement, all that is necessary to be taken into consideration is the appropriate notional income of the deceased, where there is no material available on record. It is no doubt true that the accident in question had occurred in the year 1998. The claimants had contended that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month but without documents. In the absence of any documentary evidence to that effect, the appropriate course would be to take note that the fact remains that the deceased had five children and wife to support. Even during the year 1998, if that be the position even on the conservative estimate, a sum of Rs.3,500/ per month could be taken for consideration for the normal survival of such family. 40% of the said amount is to be added towards future prospects since the deceased was aged 30 years. The total income could be taken at Rs.4,900/. Taking note of the number of dependents, ¼ th is deducted towards self – expenses which is in a sum of Rs.1225/. The `loss of dependency’ could, therefore, be taken at Rs.3,675/, which if noted on the annual basis and the appropriate multiplier of `17’ is applied, it would work out to a sum of Rs.7,49,700/. Rs.70,000/ is added towards conventional heads and the total amount would work out to be Rs.8,19,700/.
5. On the question of the quantum to be awarded keeping in view the finding relating to contributory negligence we may note that the conclusion reached by the M.A.C.T. and upheld by the High Court 3 is not justified. The driver of the vehicle was examined as D.W. 1 and the conductor was examined as D.W. 2. The said witnesses have not indicated the manner in which the accident had occurred, for the Tribunal to have assumed that the deceased while alighting from the bus had lost his balance and fallen, thereafter the rear wheel had gone over the deceased. In fact they had in their objection statement indicated total denial. Therefore, the evidence, which was tendered by the claimants was sufficient to hold that the driver was negligent. Hence, the entire compensation as worked out at Rs.8,19,700/ is liable to be paid. The compensation as awarded by the High Court shall now be deducted and the balance amount with interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from date of the petition before M.A.C.T. shall be deposited by the respondent Corporation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order before the M.A.C.T. The amount thereafter shall be disbursed to the claimants.
6. The appeals are allowed in aboveterms.
…………………………………J (A.S. BOPANNA) …………………………………J (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI 10TH APRIL, 2023.
4
ITEM NO.75 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.71487149/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02122019 in FAFO No. 1040/2001 & FAFO No. 1662/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) MITHILESH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. Respondent(s) ([MACT MATTER] (IA No. 45033/2022 EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 145741/2022 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 45034/2022 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. & IA No. 45036/2022 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 10042023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dr. Rajeev Sharma, AOR Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghuvir Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devjani Deka Bharali, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption Applications are allowed.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed Order.5
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (DIPTI KHURANA)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the file)