RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. on 9 December 2022

RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS.

v.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022)

DECEMBER 09, 2022

[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Compensation – In theinstant case, two persons died (on spot) of injuries suffered by theaccident caused by the truck driven in a rash and negligent manner– Appellants (dependents of the deceased persons) filed claimpetition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – Tribunalawarded compensation to the appellants but on appeal by insurancecompany before the High Court, the High Court reduced the quantumof compensation by relying upon the contention of insurancecompany that the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceasedpersons were taken into account by the tribunal without examiningthe person who issued the said documents – On appeal, held: HighCourt erred while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip onthe ground that the person issuing it was not examined – The saiddocuments are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased andwere also corroborated by the statements of the wife of the deceasedand his co-workers – Once the actual occurrence of the accidentwas established, the compensation awarded must be just and fair.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Beneficial Legislation – Standardof Proof – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece oflegislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases,once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established,the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation –Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are notapplicable in motor accident compensation cases – The standardof proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probabilityand not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubtwhich is followed in criminal cases.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Loss of Consortium – Tribunalawarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium – The compensationunder this head needs to be increased by 10% after every threeyears.

845

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing withcompensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accidenthas been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award justBand fair compensation. Strict rules of evidence as applicable in acriminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind mustbe of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard ofproof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminalcases”. [Para 19][852-F-G]C

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.(2011) 10 SCC 509 : [2011] 14 SCR 763; Sunita &Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486 : [2019] 3 SCR 329; KusumLata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 646 : [2011]D3 SCR 480 – relied on.

2. The view taken by the High Court while rejecting thesalary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on theground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documentswas not examined before the Tribunal. The said documents areEconclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were alsocorroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife and hisco-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessingthe income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basisof minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. [ParaF20][853-A-C]

3. The grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal towards loss ofconsortium is insufficient, and deserves interference. The grantof Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased toRs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.1,76,000/G-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeralexpenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/-each. [Para 31][856-H; 857-A]

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors(2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100; United India H

Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur& Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 – followed.

A

Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram AllianceInsurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 : [2011] 9SCR 922; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v NanuRam & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 – referred to.

B

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8179of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc. AppealNo. 441 of 2019.

E

With

Civil Appeal No. 8180 of 2022.

Anuj Bhandari, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Advs. for theAppellants.

F

S. L. Gupta, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Mata Prashad Singh, NeerajSrivastava, Ms. Ranjana R. Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Dharm Pal Saini,Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. Nidhi, Sarthak Arora, Advs. for theRespondents.

G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.

These two appeals are directed against the final orders dated29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur H

ABench (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in two MiscellaneousAppeals (being S.B.Misc. Appeal No. 441/2019 and S.B. Misc. AppealNo. 561/2019) filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to set aside thejudgment and award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor AccidentClaim Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, DistrictBharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned Tribunal’) in Misc.BCivil (M.A.C.) No. 18/2016 (13/2014) and Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No. 14/2014. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident. Hence, theyhave been clubbed together and are being decided by this commonjudgment.

2. In both the matters, the High Court allowed the appeal ofCRespondent No.1 herein and modified the award passed by the LearnedTribunal, and reduced the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8179 OF 2022

D3. The Appellants are the heirs and dependents of Ghasita Ram(hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who died on 29.10.2013 as aresult of a motor accident. The deceased was working as a driver inPNC Infratech Ltd. On 29.10.2013, at around about 8:00 PM, the deceased(along with his co-worker Kanti Lal) was riding a motorcycle whilereturning home from work, when he was hit from behind by a truckEbeing driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner. Thedeceased and his co-worker were severely injured and died on the spot.The deceased has left behind five dependents who are the Appellantsbefore this Court.

4. The Appellants filed a claim petition [being Misc. Civil (M.A.C.)FNo. 18/2016 (13/2014)] under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 before the Learned Tribunal, seeking compensation amounting toRs.91,46,000/- along with interest. Vide Judgment and Award dated26.10.2018, the Learned Tribunal awarded a compensation ofRs.19,64,218.75/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date ofGfiling of the claim petition till the realization of the decretal amount.

5. The Learned Tribunal held that the deceased died as a resultof the injuries suffered in the accident caused due to rash and negligentdriving of Respondent No. 3 herein. The deceased’s age at the time ofthe accident was 41 years, and the same was ascertained by the LearnedTribunal on the basis of his driving license (Exhibit-A1) which recordedH

his date of birth as 25.08.1972. Exhibit-19 (Salary Certificate) and Exhibit-20 (Pay Slip) were produced. On the basis of pay slip, the LearnedTribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month.To this, 25% was added towards future prospects bringing his monthlyincome to Rs.14,031.25/-. The Learned Tribunal added a multiplier of15, thereby calculating the compensation to be Rs.25,25,635/-(Rs.14,031.25 x 12 x 15). After deducting 1/4[th] of the total income towardspersonal expenses (amounting to Rs.6,31,406.25/-), the Learned Tribunalarrived at a compensation of Rs.18,94,218.75/-. Further, the LearnedTribunal awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal tothe Appellants under various heads was as under:

The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate of interest at 7% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation ofthe decretal amount. The Respondents were held jointly or severallyliable to pay the said amount.

7. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before theHigh Court. Vide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, the HighCourt held that the Learned Tribunal erred in relying on the salarycertificate (Exhibit-19) and pay slip (Exhibit-20) to ascertain the incomeof the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month, as the person who issued thesaid documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal.Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income at Rs. 4,836/- permonth in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevanttime. Out of this, 1/4[th] amount was deducted towards personal expensesof the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a multiplier of14 was added, and the compensation arrived at, was Rs.6,09,336/-(Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 14). Further, 25% was awarded towards futureprospects (amounting to Rs.1,52,334/). Thus, the loss of dependencywas calculated at Rs.7,61,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/-). The High AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, andRs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, a total compensationof Rs.8,16,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) was awarded by the High Court. The remaining terms and conditionsof the original award passed by the Learned Tribunal were affirmed.

B8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court undervarious heads is mentioned as under:

C

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

D10. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe Appellants argued that the High Court was not justifying in rejectingthe pay slip and salary certificate of the deceased by holding that theperson issuing the said documents was not examined. It was contendedthat the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) had testified beforethe Learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning around Rs.17,000/E- from his employment as a driver and also by doing agricultural work.The same had been testified by his co-workers (who were also eye-witnesses to the accident) as well. It was further contended that AppellantNo. 1’s evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased wascorroborated by the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased. ThereFwas no occasion for the High Court to set aside the Learned Tribunal’sorder with respect to a pure finding of fact and re-appreciate the entireevidence. It was also mentioned that the Appellants could notinadvertently produce the pass-book of the deceased (reflecting his salaryas Rs.12,000/- per month) before the Learned Tribunal, and copies ofthe same have been filed before this Court.G

11. To support the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for theAppellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case ofUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.[1]

H1 (2011) 10 SCC 509

12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in thecase of Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram AllianceInsurance Co. Ltd.[2]

13. It was next contended that the amount of Rs.40,000/- awardedtowards loss of consortium to five dependents is too meager and eachdependent is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the saidhead. Reliance to support the aforesaid contention has been made to thejudgment of this Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nanu Ram & Ors.[3]

14. Per contra, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma and Ms. Nidhi,Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, arguedthat the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased could not beproved either before the Learned Tribunal or before the High Court, andas such, grant of compensation awarded by the High Court is just, fairand reasonable and requires no interference by this Court.

15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of thelearned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

16. In the case of Shila Datta (Supra), this Court held as under:- “10. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motoraccident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by thedependant family members) before the Motor Accident ClaimsLearned Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act isneither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense.It is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisionsof Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself.We may in this context refer to the following significant aspectsin regard to the Learned Tribunals and determination ofcompensation by Learned Tribunals:

…

(ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimantis required to make an application in a form prescribed underthe Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedingsare suo moto initiated by the Learned Tribunal.

…

2 (2011) 13 SCC 236

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(vi) The Learned Tribunal is required to follow such summaryprocedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more personspossessing special knowledge of and matters relevant toinquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide Section169 of the Act).”

B17. Reference in this connection may also be made to theobservations made by this Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.[4], wherein it wasobserved as under :- “It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, oncethe foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of theCaccident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role wouldbe to calculate the quantum of just compensation if theaccident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driverof a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal wouldnot be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably,Dwhile deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents,the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be ofpreponderance of probability and not the strict standard ofproof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed incriminal cases.”

E18. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. Vs. Satbir &Ors.[5], this Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating tomotor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the caseas it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep thisdistinction in mind.

19. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficialFpiece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases,once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, theTribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held bythis Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules ofevidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motorGaccident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to beborne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not thestrict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which isfollowed in criminal cases”.

4 (2020) 13 SCC 486H5 (2011) 3 SCC 646

20. In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken bythe High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and payslip (Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the personissuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined beforethe Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of theincome of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statementsof the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-workers. Assuch, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of thedeceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixedby the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings ofthe Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’sincome at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned twodocuments. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to,Rs.11,225/- x 12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.

21. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view of theLearned Tribunal in ascertaining the same as 41 years on the basis of thedriving license of the deceased (Exhibit A1) was correct, and the same ishereby affirmed. However, the award of future prospects at 25% needsto be interfered with. In view of the law laid down by a five-Judge Benchof this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi& Ors.[6], we are inclined to assess the future prospects of the deceased,considering his age, at 30% of his annual income (Rs.1,34,700/-), whichworks out to be Rs.40,410/-. Therefore, annual income accounting forfuture prospects is Rs.1,34,700/- + Rs.40,410/- = Rs.1,75,110. In view ofSarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.[7], 1/4[th] ofthe said amount would be deducted towards the deceased’s personalexpenses as he was married and had 5 dependants. 1/4[th] of Rs.1,75,110/-is Rs.43,777.5/-. Rs.1,75,110/- – Rs.43,777.5/- = Rs.1,31,332.5/-.Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 14 (as the deceased was agedbetween 40 to 50 years), the loss of dependency would be assessed at,Rs.1,31,332.5/- x 14 = Rs.18,38,655/-.

22. The deceased left behind five dependants, i.e., the presentAppellants. In view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the LearnedTribunal towards loss of consortium is insufficient in our view, and deservesinterference. A three Judge Bench of this Court in United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.[8], has 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680

7 (2009) 6 SCC 121

8 (2021) 11 SCC 780

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aawarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and towards lossof parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. Thecompensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%after every three years. Accordingly, the grant of Rs.40,000/- towardsloss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant,amounting to a total of Rs.2,20,000/-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- eachBfor the heads of ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also verymeagre. In our considered opinion, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is liable tobe paid towards funeral expenses. Similarly, award of Rs.15,000/- towards‘loss of estate’ is liable to be increased to Rs.20,000/-.

23. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants underCvarious heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained bythe Learned Tribunal would be:

D

24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rateEof interest payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to becalculated at 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petitionbefore the Learned Tribunal till the date of realisation.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8180 OF 2022

F25. The connected Civil Appeal No. 8180 of 2022 (Seema &Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) is arising outof the same motor accident, and is based on the same set of facts andcircumstances, the only difference being the age of the deceased KantiLal which was 38 years at the time of his death. The Learned Tribunalassessed the monthly income at Rs.11,225/-, and awarded 40% towardsGfuture prospects bringing his monthly income to Rs.15,715/-. To this,the Tribunal added a multiplier of 15, thereby calculating thecompensation to be Rs.28,28,700/- (Rs.15,715/- x 12 x 15). Afterdeducting 1/4[th] of the total income towards personal expenses(amounting to Rs.7,07,175/), the Tribunal arrived at a compensation ofRs.21,21,525/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000 towards lossH

of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses.

26. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal tothe Appellants under various heads was as under:

The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate interest at 7% per annumfrom the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the decretalamount. The Respondents were held jointly or severally liable to pay thesaid amount.

27. On appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, the High Courtvide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, held that the Tribunalerred in relying on the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-18) to ascertain the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month, asthe person who issued the said documents was not examined before theTribunal. Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income at Rs.4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at therelevant time. Out of this, 1/4[th] amount was deducted towards personalexpenses of the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, amultiplier of 15 was added, and the compensation arrived at, wasRs.6,52,860/- (Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 15). Further, 40% was awarded towardsfuture prospects (amounting to Rs.2,61,144/-), Rs.40,000/- towards lossof consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

28. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court undervarious heads is mentioned as under:

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AThe remaining terms and conditions of the original award passedby the Tribunal were affirmed.

29. Applying the same reasoning as in the case of Rajwati @Rajjo & Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.(connected Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022), we are of the opinion thatBthe Tribunal has correctly determined the deceased’s monthly incomeas Rs.11,225/- while placing reliance on documentary evidence adducedin this regard, viz, the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-18), as well as the statements of the deceased’s wife and his co-workers.We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while holdingthat since the person issuing the two aforementioned documents wasCnot examined before the Tribunal the income of the deceased wasassessed at Rs.4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixedby the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings ofthe Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s income atRs.11,225/- per month. Annual income of the deceased, therefore,Damounts to Rs.11,225/-x12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.

30. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view ofthe Tribunal in ascertaining the same as 38 years on the basis of thedriving license of the deceased (Exhibit A2) was correct, and the sameis hereby affirmed. However, the award of future prospects at 40%Eneeds to be interfered with. In view of the law laid down by a five-JudgeBench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra),we are inclined to assessthe future prospects of the deceased, considering his age, at 50% ofhis annual income (Rs.1,34,700/-), which works out to be Rs.67,350/-.Therefore, annual income accounting for future prospects isRs.1,34,700/- + Rs.67,350/- = Rs.2,02,050/-. In view of Sarla VermaF(Supra), 1/4[th] of the said amount would be deducted towards thedeceased’s personal expenses as he was married and had 4 dependants.Hence, 1/4[th] of Rs.2,02,050/- is Rs.50,512.5/-, Rs.2,02,050/- –Rs.50,512.5/- = Rs.1,51,537.5/-. Accordingly, after applying themultiplier of 15 (as the deceased was aged between 36 to 40 years),Gthe loss of dependency would be assessed at, Rs.1,51,537.5/- x 15 =Rs.22,73,062.5/-.

31. The deceased left behind four dependants, i.e., the presentAppellants. In view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunaltowards loss of consortium is insufficient in our view, and deservesHinterference. Placing reliance on the Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (Supra), the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increasedto Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.1,76,000/-.Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeral expenses’and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/- each.

A

32. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants undervarious heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained byBthe Learned Tribunal would be:

C

33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rateDof interest payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to becalculated at 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petitionbefore the Learned Tribunal till the date of realisation.

34. As a result, the impugned judgments of the High Court dated29.04.2019 in both the appeals are hereby set aside.

E

35. Accordingly, both the appeals stand allowed.

Devika Gujral

(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

F

G

H