Supreme Court of India
ROOPWATI & ORS. versus RAM KISHAN & ORS. on 14 October 2022
ROOPWATI & ORS.
v.
RAM KISHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6818 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident resulting in deathof a person – Compensation claim on his behalf by his wife, his sonand his mother – Accident occurred when deceased was riding ona three-wheeler with his brother – The vehicle was being driven byrespondent no. 1, and was insured with respondent no.3-insurancecompany – Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occurdue to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the three-wheelerand fixed the liability on the insurance company – Total amount ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.4,33,000/- – Appeal– High Court awarded increased compensation on the opinion thatthe multiplier should have been thirteen instead of nine and theTribunal was wrong in not granting any amount towards the futureprospects – Therefore, the High Court increased the compensationawarded to Rs. 6,55,000/- and also increased the rate of interestfrom 7% to 7.5% – Held: The change of multiplier was granted bythe High Court as the age of the deceased was wrongly recorded as60 and was found to be 50 years, based on scientific evidence –High Court correctly awarded the compensation – Order of HighCourt upheld.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6818of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 26.09.2018 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 6277 of 2014(O&M).
Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Mukesh KumarSharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ravi Shankar Jha, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Abhinav Singh,Advs. for the Respondents.
561
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered bySUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal is of the claimants, which arises out of the ImpugnedJudgment dated 26.09.2018 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana atChandigarh in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident ClaimsBTribunal (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 13.05.2013.
2. The accident occurred on 22.11.2010 when the deceased HariRam was riding on a three-wheeler with his brother Dev Prasad fromMitrol to Palwal, Haryana. The vehicle was being driven by respondentno. 1, i.e., Ram Kishan and was insured with respondent no. 3 (IFFCOCTOKIO General Insurance Company LTD.). During the journey anaccident occurred and the vehicle was toppled which resulted in grievousinjuries to the body of Hari Ram. He was taken to the hospital but hesuccumbed to his injuries on the very next day on 23.11.2010. The claimpetition was filed on his behalf by his wife, his son and his mother. TheDTribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur due to the rashand negligent driving by driver of the three-wheeler. The vehicle wasinsured with respondent no.3 insurance company and the liability wasfixed on the insurance company by the Tribunal. The award was madeon the following: - E
F
G
H
3. The matter was taken in appeal by the High Court which afterconsidering the submissions of the Ram Kishan and respondent no.3awarded them increased compensation on the opinion that the multipliershould have been thirteen instead of nine and the Tribunal was wrong innot granting any amount towards the future prospects.
4. Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation awardedto Rs. 6,55,000/- with the amount to be given at the 7.5 % interest. Thechange of multiplier was granted by the High Court as the age of thedeceased was wrongly recorded as 60 and was found to be 50 years,based on scientific evidence. The High Court has also increased therate of interest from 7% to 7.5%.
5. The High Court has correctly awarded the compensation andthe order of the High Court needs no interference by this Court. Hencethis appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H