Supreme Court of India
B. SANGEETHA & ANR. versus OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT. LTD. & ANR. on 5 June 2020
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 255
255
B. SANGEETHA & ANR.
A
v.
OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2020)
B
JUNE 05, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Compensation:
C
Motor Accident – claim for compensation – Tribunal takingCthe monthly income of deceased as Rs. 9000/- p.m. awardedcompensation of Rs. 20,11,000/- – High Court in appeal enhancedthe compensation to Rs. 33,07,000/-, by taking the monthly incomeof deceased as Rs. 15000/- p.m.– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:The salary certificate of the deceased indicated that his monthlyDsalary was Rs. 23,419/- p.m.– Therefore, compensation awardedby High Court is enhanced to Rs. 45,29,000/-, with interest at 9%p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition until payment – Appealallowed – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi(2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – relied on.
E
Case Law Reference
relied onPara 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2511of 2020.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2017 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 2667/2015.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Smarhar Singh, Ashutosh Thakur, A. K. Soni, RajeevMaheshwaranand Roy, P. Srinivasan, Adv. for the Respondents.
G
H
AThe following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 27 JuneB2017 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.The High Court in an appeal against an award of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal[1], enhanced the compensation payable to the appellantsfrom Rs 20,11,000 to Rs 33,07,000. The amount was directed to beapportioned between the appellants, who are the wife and mother ofthe deceased. The liability has been fastened jointly and severally onCthe owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer.3. The issue in the present appeal pertains only to the quantumof compensation.
4. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the monthly salaryDof the deceased proximate to the date of the accident (which took placeon 21 June 2012) was Rs 9,000.The High Court determined the incomeat Rs 15,000 per month. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitsthat in the face of ample evidence produced by the appellants, the HighCourt was not justified in discarding the salary certificate for May 2012.
5. The deceased was a BSc in computers and was employed inEa private company. The spouse of the deceased, who deposed in supportof the claim for compensation, produced the salary certificates of thedeceased and bank statements. The High Court has adverted to thesalary certificates and the bank statements, which were relied upon bythe appellants, in the course of its judgment. Exhibit P-8, which was aFsalary certificate for the month of May 2012 indicated that the salaryof the deceased was Rs 23,419. However, the High Court held thatthe salary, as reflected in the said certificate, should not be acceptedhaving regard to the salary certificates for the anterior period whichhad also been produced on the record, which showed a lower salary.
G6. The Tribunal held that though the deceased had been employedwith the Sauter Race Technologies Private Limited, the salary certificatethat was produced was of Carrier Race Technologies Limited. Thisfinding has been stressed upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer. On this aspect of the matter, the cross-examinationof the claimant indicates that no effort was made by the insurer todiscredit the salary certificate which was produced by the spouse ofthe deceased. In the course of her deposition, she explained that CarrierRace Technologies Limited was a sister concern. Salary certificatesand bank statements were produced.
A
B
7. Since the bank statements and the certificates were dulyproved and marked, there was no reason or justification for discardingthe salary certificate for the month of May 2012, which indicates thatthe net pay of the deceased was Rs 23,419. This is for the periodproximate to the accident. The compensation awarded by the High Courtmust hence be enhanced in accordance with the legal principles whichemerge from the decisions of this court. The compensation payable tothe appellants is recomputed as follows:
C
8. In granting future prospects, the standard addition of Rs 70,000and adopting a multiplier of 17, we are guided by the judgment of theConstitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vPranay Sethi[2]. There is no dispute in regard to the correctness of themultiplier applied by the High Court.
F
9. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the appellantsshall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs 45,28,981 rounded off toRs 45.29 lakhs on which interest shall be payable at nine per cent perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment.
G
H
258SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
A10. The enhanced amount shall be paid over in equal proportionto the appellants, together with accrued interest, if any.
11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No order asto costs.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.B
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H