1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 9343  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 29254  of 2019)

    (D No 44366 of 2018)

Jumani Begam                   .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

Ram Narayan & Ors                  ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Delay condoned.

2 Leave granted.

3 This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Chhattisgarh in MAC No 1370 of 2009.  The High Court, in

an appeal arising from a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal1,

enhanced  the  compensation  from  Rs  3,81,988  to  Rs  6,81,000  and

maintained interest at the rate of six per cent.   

4 Relevant details pertaining to this appeal are as follows:

The date of accident is 13 August 2008.  The deceased was 53 years

old at the time of the incident.  He was employed as an Assistant Grade II

1 “MACT”

2

in  the  Water  Resources Department  of  the State  of  Chhattisgarh  on a

monthly salary of Rs 12,636.  While he was riding his motorcycle at about

9 pm on Bilaspur-Raipur Road, there was a collision with a truck trailer

which was parked on the road and he died on the spot.  The appellant,

who  is  the  surviving  spouse  of  the  deceased,  filed  a  claim  for

compensation  under  the  provisions  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act  1988,

claiming compensation in the amount of Rs 17,50,000.  The truck driver,

the owner of the vehicle and the insurer were impleaded as parties to the

proceedings.  The MACT, by its order dated 30 July 2009, came to the

conclusion that this was a case of contributory negligence.  The claim for

compensation was computed as follows:

a) Loss of dependency Rs 7,51,476/-

b) Expenses incurred in last rites Rs.5,000/-

c) Loss of love and affection Rs.5,000/-

d) Loss of property Rs.2500/-

Total Rs.7,63,976/-

However, on the ground of there being contributory negligence on the part

of the deceased assessed at 50%, a total amount of Rs 3,81,988 came to

be awarded, together with interest at six per cent per annum.   

5 In  appeal,  the  High  Court  affirmed  the  view  of  the  MACT  on

contributory  negligence,  but  recomputed the compensation.   Taking the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs 12,636, one-third was deducted

towards personal  expenses.   Applying a multiplier  of  11,  the deceased

3

being 53 years  of  age,  the total  amount  payable was computed at  Rs

11,12,000 on account of loss of dependency.  A lump sum of Rs 1,25,000

was awarded by the High Court  towards conventional head.  Since the

High Court had affirmed the view of the MACT on contributory negligence,

the total compensation was enhanced from Rs 3,81,988 to Rs 6,81,000.

6 In  pursuance  of  the  notice  that  was  issued  by  this  Court  on  22

January 2019, the office report indicates that service is complete.

7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed

the view which has found acceptance with the High Court,  both on the

finding  of  contributory  negligence  and  on  the  computation  of

compensation.   On the first  aspect,  learned counsel  submitted that  the

order of the MACT indicates that there was an independent witness who

had deposed that the truck trailer was parked without any reflectors on the

road.  It was urged that though the MACT accepted the evidence of the

independent witness, it came to the conclusion that there was contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased without cogent reason.  The High

Court, it has been submitted, simply proceeded to affirm the view of the

MACT without giving reasons in spite of the fact that it was seized of a

substantive appeal against the order of the MACT.  On the computation of

the compensation, learned counsel submitted that in terms of the judgment

of the Constitution Bench of this Court in  National Insurance Company

Limited v Pranay Sethi2, the High Court ought to have added an amount

of 15% towards future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased

and the fact that he was in government employment.

2 (2007) 16 SCC 680

4

8 On the aspect of contributory negligence, the MACT adverted to the

statement of AW 2, who was an independent eye-witness at the spot of the

accident, in the following terms:

“As  per  an  eye  witness  to  the  accident,  on  behalf  of  the applicant, the statement of AW-2 Mohd. Rafiq Qureshi has been got recorded.  According to this witness, at the time of accident he was going from his house situated in Dharsiva to the Dhaba situated at about 2-2.5 kms away from Dharsivan to eat food on the Bilaspur road and when he had reached near Sagar Family Restaurant and Dhaba then suddenly from the side of Bilaspur, Mirza  Jumman  Beg  who  was  coming  on  his  hero  Honda motorcycle from the side of Bilaspur has come and collided on the backside of  the truck parked on the road on the left  side which truck was of  16 tyres and he had fallen with  the Hero Honda motorcycle.   This  witness  has  further  stated  that  after eating the food in the Dhaba when he was returning back, he came to know that Mirza jumman Beg has expired.  In cross- examination  this  witness  has  stated that  the  truck  trailer  was parked facing Raipur i.e. its rear was facing Bilaspur.  In cross, this witness has denied that there was a radium reflector on the rear side of the truck trailer.  This witness has not been given the suggestion  in  the  cross-examination  that  the  indicator  of  the truck trailer was lit.  In cross examination this witness has denied that any bush etc. had been put on the side of the Truck Trailer as indication mark.”

9 The MACT then discussed the evidence of  the driver  of  the truck

trailer, NAW 1.  After analysing the evidence of the driver, the MACT held

that his evidence did not inspire confidence, when he stated that indicators

on the truck trailer had been lit.  On the contrary, the eye-witness, AW 2, in

the course of his cross-examination, denied the existence of reflectors at

the spot.  The MACT noted that it did not appear that the truck trailer had

been parked outside the area of the pakka road.  In spite of its analysis in

the above terms, the MACT surmised that if the lights of the motorcycle

were lit, the deceased would have been able to avoid the accident.  This

5

part of the reasoning of the MACT is purely a matter of surmise.  Once the

substantive evidence before the MACT established that  the truck trailer

had been parked on the road at night without any reflectors, we are of the

view that there was no reason or justification for the MACT to proceed on

the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence.

We find from the judgment of the High Court that this aspect has not been

discussed at all and the High Court simply proceeded to confirm the finding

of  contributory  negligence.   Consequently,  on  the  first  limb  of  the

submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is correct

and the submission requires to be accepted.

10 On the computation of the compensation which is payable, we are

guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra).

The monthly salary of the deceased, who was engaged as an Assistant

Grade II in the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh

was Rs 12,636.   Since the deceased was married,  one-third deduction

would have to be made on account of his personal expenses, which would

work out to Rs 4,212.  The net income would, therefore, be Rs 8,424.  An

addition of 15% towards future prospects would be required to be made

having regard to the age of the deceased, which was 53.  The total income

of the deceased would, therefore, work out to Rs 9,687 per month.  The

yearly  income of  the deceased would  stand computed at  Rs 1,16,244.

Applying  a  multiplier  of  11,  the  total  loss  of  dependency would  be Rs

12,78,684.   In  addition  to  the  aforesaid  amount,  conventional  heads

amounting to Rs 75,000 would have to be granted in terms of the decision

noted above.  Hence, the total compensation payable on account of death

6

would  work  out  to  Rs  13,53,684.   The  appellant  would  be  entitled  to

interest at the rate of six per cent, as awarded by the MACT and affirmed

by the High Court on the aforesaid amount from the date of the accident.   

11 The insurer shall deposit the difference in compensation before the

MACT, Raipur for disbursal within a period of three months from the receipt

of  a  certified  copy  of  this  order.   The  MACT  shall  disburse  the

compensation in an appropriate manner keeping the interest of the widow,

who is the appellant before this Court in mind.

12 The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.  There shall be

no order as to costs.   

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Ajay Rastogi]

 New Delhi; December 11, 2019

7

ITEM NO.14               COURT NO.8               SECTION IV-A

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 44366/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  06-10-2017 in MAC No. 1370/2009 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)

JUMANI BEGAM                                       Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

RAM NARAYAN & ORS.                                 Respondent(s)

(WITH IA No. 9507/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 9508/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING /  CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 9510/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)   Date : 11-12-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR Mr. Abhay Singh, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable  judgment.   There  shall  be  no  order  as  to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)