KANHSINGH Vs TUKARAM
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-000347-000347 / 2015
Diary number: 35334 / 2013
Advocates: V. K. SIDHARTHAN Vs
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 OF 2014)
KANHSINGH & ANR …APPELLANTS
Vs.
TUKARAM & ORS …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the impugned Judgment and order dated
23.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Bench at Indore wherein the High Court partly allowed
NON REPORTABLE
Page 2
2
and disposed of the Miscellaneous Appeal No.2918 of
2009 filed by the appellants.
3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder
to appreciate the case with a view to determine
whether the appellants are entitled for relief as
prayed in this appeal.
4. On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the
appellants herein, aged 27 years, was driving the
motor cycle No. MP-09-LM-8244 along with his friend
Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which was
being ridden by Deependra met with an accident when
it was hit by tanker No. MP-14-B-6645 driven by
Tukaram, respondent No. 1 herein. Deependra Singh
succumbed to his injuries during the course of
treatment.
5. The claimant-appellants, parents of the deceased
filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Jawra, District Ratlam (M.P.) (in
short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 of the M.V.
Act, 1988, for a compensation of Rs.27,85,000/-. The
Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the
Page 3
3
Claim Petition by awarding a total sum of
Rs.12,10,014/-.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, the appellants filed Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 2918 of 2009 before the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court by its
judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 partly allowed
the said appeal and disposed of the same with an
enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.
7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants that the courts below failed to notice
that the deceased was 27 years of age and was posted
as the Manager at HDFC Bank at the time of the
accident. He would have served for another 35 years
if he would have been alive and during that period
his salary would have certainly doubled. The learned
counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors.1,
wherein it was held thus:-
“31. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. this Court noticed
1 (2013) 7 SCC 476
Page 4
4
that the High Court determined the compensation by granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that in the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that period his salary would have certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court….”
8. It is further contended that the courts below have
erred in the computation of income of the deceased as
Rs. 11,146/- p.m. In the case of Raghuvir Singh
Matolya & Ors. v. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors.2 and in
Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Another3, this Court observed that the
deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA,
CCA and medical allowance are done on incorrect basis
and should have been taken into consideration the
calculation of the income of the deceased. Therefore,
the monthly income of the deceased should have been
taken as Rs.15,155/- p.m.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the
respondents contended that the High Court concurred
2 (2009) 15 SCC 363 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
Page 5
5
with the findings of the Tribunal on all material
issues of fact but observed that the quantum of
compensation in respect of loss due to death deserved
to be enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the High
Court has already enhanced the compensation
sufficiently, which does not call for interference of
this Court with the impugned judgment.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties. In our considered view, the courts below
have erred in taking the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.11,146/- p.m. From the facts,
circumstances and evidence on record, it is clear
that the deceased was 27 years of age, working with
HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum
(i.e. Rs.15,155/- p.m.) and there were definite
chances of his further promotion and consequent
increase in salary by way of periodical revision of
the salary on the basis of cost of living Index
prevalent in the area if he would alive and worked in
the bank. Therefore, adding 50% under the head of
future prospects to the annual income of the deceased
according to the principle laid down in the case of
Page 6
6
Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), the total loss of income
comes to Rs.2,72,790/- per annum [Rs.
1,81,860 + (1/2 * Rs.1,81,860)]. Deducting 10% tax
(Rs.27,279/-), net annual income comes to
Rs.2,45,511/-. Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards
personal expenses since the claimants are the parents
of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674
X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the
parent) Rs. 18,00,414/-.
11. The Tribunal and the High Court have further
erred in law in awarding only Rs.2,000/- towards
funeral expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to
the principles laid down by this Court in Rajesh &
Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.4. Hence, we award
Rs.25,000/- towards the same.
12. Further, the Tribunal and the High Court have
erred in not following the principles laid down by
this Court in M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.5 in awarding a meagre sum of just
Rs.30,000/- under the heads of loss of love and
4 (2013) 9 SCC 54 5 2013 (12) SCALE 324
Page 7
7
affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/- to the
appellants towards the same.
13. Further, we award Rs.5,00,190/- towards medical
expenses incurred towards medical treatment.
14. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled
to compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of
dependency Rs.18,00,414/-
2. Loss of love and
affection Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.5,00,190/-
TOTAL Rs.24,25,604/-
15. The Courts below have erred in not granting the
interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. as
per the principles laid down in the case of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy6. The total compensation
payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance
Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/- with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the
6 (2011)14 SCC 481
Page 8
8
application till the date of payment to the
appellants.
16. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in awarding
Rs.24,25,604/- with interest @9% p.a. The respondent-
Insurance Company shall either pay by way of demand
draft in favour of the appellants or deposit the same
with interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Jawara, District Ratlam, after
deducting the amount already paid to the appellants,
if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of
the copy of this judgment. No Costs.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[V.GOPALA GOWDA]
……………………………………………………………………J. [C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi, January 13, 2015