Supreme Court of India
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus CHAMUNDESWARI & ORS. on 1 October 2021
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 611
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
v.
CHAMUNDESWARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2021)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident – The victim-deceased aged 35 years was working as Manager in PrivateCompany – Claimants are wife and minor son – One the fatefulday, he was driving car – At that time, the offending vehicle (Eichervan) was in front of the car of the deceased – It was case of claimantsthat all of sudden, the driver of Eicher van turned towards rightwithout giving any signal or indicator which resulted in accident –The victim died and other passengers in the car i.e first respondent-wife, respondent-minor son and sister of first respondent sufferedinjuries – Respondents claimed Rs. 3 crores – Tribunal allowed theclaim partly and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,40,500/- with afinding that there was contributory negligence – High Court heldthat the accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver ofEicher van and taking annual income of deceased as Rs. 12.29,949/- awarded total compensation of Rs. 1.85 crores – On insurancecompany’s appeal, held: Evidence of PW-1 as well as PW-3 wasthat the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, took asudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator – Theevidence of PW-1 & PW-3 was categorical and in absence of anyrebuttal evidence by the driver of Eicher van, High Court rightlyheld that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of thedriver of Eicher van – PW-1 herself travelled in the very car andPW-3, who gave statement before the police, was examined as eye-witness – In view of such evidence on record, there was no reasonto give weightage to the contents of the FIR – The accident occurredon 14.10.2013, the High Court correctly took into account the salaryof the deceased in Form-16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 –Though, it was the claim of the respondents-claimants that thedeceased was earning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was notaccepted and the High Court itself assessed the income of thedeceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum – As the deceased was in
A
B
CDEF
G
H
Apermanent job and having regard to age of the deceased on thedate of the accident, the future prospects and the multiplier werecorrectly applied by the High Court – Even the amount ofcompensation on other conventional heads is awarded correctly bythe High Court.
BDismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1as well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in front ofthe car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signalor indicator. The evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 is categorical and inCabsence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver ofEicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accidentoccurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van.PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and PW-3, who has givenstatement before the police, was examined as eye–witness. Inview of such evidence on record, there is no reason to giveDweightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If anyevidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in theFirst Information Report, the evidence which is recorded beforethe Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of theFirst Information Report. [Para 8][615-E-H]
E
E
2. The accident occurred on 14.10.2013, the High Courthas correctly taken into account the salary disclosed by thedeceased in Form–16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 and incomeof the deceased is taken as Rs.12,29,949/- per annum for thepurpose of determination of loss of dependency. Though, it wasFthe claim of the respondents–claimants that the deceased wasearning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was not accepted andthe High Court itself assessed the income of the deceased atRs.12,29,949/- per annum. As the deceased was in permanentjob and having regard to age of the deceased on the date of theaccident, the future prospects and the multiplier were correctlyGapplied by the High Court in conformity with the judgment of thisCourt in the Case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. DelhiTransport Corporation and Another and also in the case of NationalInsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others. Even the H
A
amount of compensation on other conventional heads is awardedcorrectly by the High Court. [Para 9][616-D-G]
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi TransportCorporation and Another 2009 (6) SCC 121: [2009] 5SCR 1098; National Insurance Company Limited v.Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680:[2017]13 SCR 100 – relied on.
B
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shuklaand Others 2007 (13) SCC 476 : [2007] 6 SCR 780;Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental InsuranceCompany Limited 2018 (6) SCC 765: [2018] 6 SCR 795– held inapplicable.
C
Case Law Reference
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6151 of2021
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras, in CMA No.1204 of 2018.
K. K. Bhat, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Shantha Raman, Selvi George,Garvesh Kabra, Advs. for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
8
Decisions referred to
In this index
6
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. Leave granted.
G
2. This appeal is filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. (3[rd]Respondent before the High Court), aggrieved by the judgment and orderdated 03.08.2018, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras inCMA No.1204 of 2018. By the aforesaid order, the High Court haspartly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the RespondentNos. 1 and 2, by enhancing compensation to Rs.1,85,08,832/-.
H
A3. The 1[st] Respondent is wife and the 2[nd] Respondent is minor sonof the deceased Mr. Subhash Babu, who died in a road accident on14.10.2013. The deceased Mr. Subhash Babu, aged about 35 years wasworking as Manager HR in a Private Limited Company. On the date ofaccident, he was driving Maruti car bearing No.DL-2C-P-5414 on NH-47 – main road from Perumanallur to Erode. At that time, the Eicher vanBbearing Registration No.TN-33-AZ-5868 was proceeding in front of thecar driven by the deceased. It is the case of the respondents–claimantsthat all of a sudden, the driver of Eicher van has turned towards rightside without giving any signal or indicator. In the said accident, driver ofthe Maruti car, Mr. Subhash Babu, died and other passengers in the carCi.e. 1[st] Respondent–wife, 2[nd] Respondent–minor son and sister of the 1[st]Respondent, suffered injuries.
4. In the Claim Petition, filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court,Tiruppur, respondents claimed compensation of Rs.3 crores. TheDrespondents pleaded negligence on the part of the driver of Eicher vanas he has taken right turn without giving any signal or indicator, as such,accident occurred only due to negligence of driver of Eicher van. Theappellant and others have appeared before the Claims Tribunal andopposed the claim. The Claims Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2017passed in M.C.O.P. No.842 of 2014 has allowed the claim partly andEawarded compensation of Rs.10,40,500/- with a finding that there was acontributory negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles inratio of 75% and 25% on the part of the deceased and the driver ofEicher van respectively. On appeal, the High Court by recording a findingthat accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of theFEicher van and the annual income of the deceased was Rs.12,29,949/-,has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,85,08,832/-, including thecompensation on conventional heads. Aggrieved by the judgment andorder of the High Court, the Insurance Company filed this Appeal beforethis Court.
5. We have heard Mr. K. K. Bhat, learned counsel appearing forGthe Appellant–Insurance Company and Mr. V. Balaji, learned counselappearing for the Respondents–Claimants.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant istwofold. Firstly, it is submitted that though the Tribunal has correctlyapportioned the negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver ofHEicher van, the same was overturned by the High Court, contrary to the evidence on record. Mainly it is contended that in the First InformationReport, it was categorically mentioned that accident occurred only dueto negligence by the deceased. In spite of the same, such importantdocumentary evidence is ignored by the High Court. The learned counselin support of his arguments placed reliance on the judgments of thisCourt in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. PremlataShukla and Others[1 ]and in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v.Oriental Insurance Company Limited[2]. It is, further, submitted by thelearned counsel that the compensation awarded by the High Court isexorbitant in absence of any acceptable evidence on record to showincome of the deceased, as pleaded in the Claim Petition.
7. On the other hand, Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the accident occurred only due to the sheernegligence on the part of the driver of Eicher van. It is submitted that thedeceased was driving Maruti car and ahead of them the Eicher van wasproceeding and the driver of the said van turned towards right side withoutany signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident. It is,further, submitted that the deceased was working as Manager HR in aPrivate Limited Company and was earning a sum of Rs.1,33,070/- permonth, in spite of the same, the High Court has taken income of thedeceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum and awarded the compensation.It is submitted that in view of the oral and the documentary evidence onrecord, a just compensation is awarded by the High Court and there areno grounds to interfere with the same.
8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW–1 as well asPW–3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has takena sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidenceof PW–1 & PW–3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidenceby examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly heldthat the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver ofEicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very carand PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examinedas eye–witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reasonto give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If anyevidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FirstInformation Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunalhas to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information 1 2007 (13) SCC 476
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AReport. In the judgment, relied on by the appellant’s counsel in the caseof Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla andOthers[1], [this Court has held that proof of rashness and negligence on the]part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintainingan application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it isheld that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the FirstBInformation Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh andOthers v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited[2], this Court has held,on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truckwhich was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently bynot maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under RoadCRegulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether driver ofthe vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula.Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence onrecord. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we areof the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel forthe appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.D
9. Even with regard to quantum of compensation, it is clear fromthe judgment of the High Court that the accident occurred on 14.10.2013,the High Court has correctly taken into account the salary disclosed bythe deceased in Form–16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 and incomeof the deceased is taken as Rs.12,29,949/- per annum for the purpose ofEdetermination of loss of dependency. Though, it was the claim of therespondents–claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.1,33,070/- permonth, the same was not accepted and the High Court itself assessedthe income of the deceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum. As the deceasedwas in permanent job and having regard to age of the deceased on the Fdate of the accident, the future prospects and the multiplier were correctlyapplied by the High Court, which is in conformity with the judgment ofthis Court in the Case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. DelhiTransport Corporation and Another[3 ]and also in the case of NationalInsurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others[4]. Even the amount of compensation on other conventional heads is awarded correctlyGby the High Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit inthis Civil Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order asto costs.
3 2009 (6) SCC 121H4 2017 (16) SCC 680
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. CHAMUNDESWARI[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
10. While issuing notice, this Court vide order dated 18.02.2019granted stay of enforcement of the impugned judgment, subject tocondition of depositing the lumpsum compensation of Rs.25 Lakhs beforethe Tribunal with a direction to deposit the same in an interest earningFixed Deposit in a Nationalised bank. The said amount shall be paid tothe respondents–claimants with accrued interest. The balance amountpayable by the appellant–Insurance Company shall be paid within a periodof two months from today.
Devika Gujral