Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1987    OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17186 of 2009)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.      ….Appellant

Versus

Yogesh Devi & Ors.      ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

Leave granted.

2. One Vijender Singh along with two others Bhagwan Das and  

Manish, was travelling by a motor cycle on 10-12-2002.    The said  

motor  cycle  was hit  by a  truck bearing registration No.  RJ-14G-

1556, resulting in the death of both Vijender Singh and Bhagwan  

Das.  Respondent No.1 is the wife,  Respondents 2 to 5 are the  

children,  Respondent No.6, we are informed, is the mother of the  

deceased  Vijender  Singh.   Respondents  1  to  6  herein  filed  an  

application  against  the  appellant  herein  and  others  for  

compensation.   The  appellant,  admittedly,  is  the  insurer  of  the  

abovementioned  truck.   A  huge  claim  of  Rs.1,86,30,000/-,  was

made  towards  compensation  on  the  ground  that  the  deceased  

Vijender Singh was earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month.  The  

Tribunal, by its Judgment dated 06-02-2006, awarded an amount of  

Rs.10,00,000-00♣ and provided for appropriate deductions for the  

amounts,  which had already been paid  and also  gave necessary  

directions for safeguarding the interest of the minor children.   

 3. From  the  Judgment  of  the  Tribunal  it  appears  that  the  

claimants based their claim on the facts that the deceased Virender  

Singh was the owner of three vehicles (mini buses) and also certain  

agricultural  land.   It  appears  from the  record  that  no  evidence  

regarding the amount of income derived from the above mentioned  

properties is adduced.  The only evidence available is the statement  

of the 1st respondent that the deceased used to give her an amount  

of  Rs.35,000/-  per  month.   She  also  admitted  in  her  cross  

examination  that  the  deceased  was  not  filing  any  income  tax  

returns.   Therefore,  the  Tribunal  reached  a  conclusion  that  the  

 The petitioners are not entitled to any other compensation and they are held entitled  to receive the following amount of compensation:

1. On a/c of loss of   dependency from income =  

Rs.9,60,000.00 2. For loss of consortium to  

Petitioner No.1 =  Rs.  10,000.00

3. For loss of love and   affection to petitioner   No.2 to 6 @ 5000/- each =  Rs.  

25,000.00 4. For funeral expenses =  Rs.  

5,000.00

----------------------- Total        Rs. 10,00,000.00

2

statement  of  the  1st respondent,  that  the  deceased  was earning  

more than Rs.35,000/-, cannot be believed.  However, the Tribunal  

opined as under:

“Thus keeping in view the fact of ownership of two buses  and one bus given on contract and the agriculture land it  can  be  said  that  the  deceased  was  earning  Rs.3900/-per  month in the capacity of the driver of a bus.  Keeping in  view the remaining buses and agriculture  land it  will  be  appropriate to hold the income of the deceased at Rs.7380/-  because in case he would have earned more than the said  amount, he must have filed the income tax return.  If the  deceased would remain alive he must have spent 1/3rd  upon  himself,  therefore  it  would  be  appropriate  to  hold  the  monthly dependency at Rs.5000/-.”

4. Aggrieved  by  the  said  determination  of  the  compensation  

made by the Tribunal, the claimants as well as the appellant herein  

carried  the  matter  in  Appeal  to  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan.  

Admittedly,  the  Appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant  herein  was  

dismissed,  whereas  the  Appeal  preferred  by  the  claimants  (S.B.  

Civil Misc. Appeal No.1222 of 2006) was partially allowed modifying  

the Award of the Tribunal.  The High Court by its Judgment dated  

30-01-2009  opined  that  the  deceased  Vijender  Singh’s  income  

should be taken at Rs.24,000/- per month of which 1/3rd is treated  

to be an amount, which the deceased would have spent on himself  

and  the  balance  on  the  claimants.   Therefore,  the  High  Court  

concluded that  the  claimants  are  entitled  for  a  compensation  of  

Rs.30,72,000/-, and directed:

“However,  the  rest  of  the  award  is  confirmed.   The  Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount  along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of  the filing of the claim petition i.e. 24.3.03 till the realization  

3

to  the  claimants  within  a  period  of  two  months.   The  learned  Tribunal  is  directed  to  insure  that  the  enhanced  amount of compensation is paid to the claimants within a  period  of  two  months  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  certified copy of this judgment.”

Hence, the present Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Dua  argued  

that the High Court grossly erred in coming to a conclusion that the  

income of the deceased should be determined at Rs.24,000/- per  

month.  Such  a  determination  is  without  any  factual  basis  or  

evidence on record and therefore, contrary to the principle of law  

laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, more particularly,  

in  State of Haryana & Anr. Vs.  Jasbir Kaur & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC  

484,  and,  therefore,  the  Judgment  under  appeal  cannot  be  

sustained.

6. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  strenuously  argued  by  Sri  

Ashwani Garg, learned counsel for the claimants, that in view of the  

fact that there are six dependents on the deceased, of whom, four  

are school-going children, who are required to be educated by the  

1st respondent  widow,  the  High  Court  rightly  enhanced  the  

compensation and the Judgment under Appeal does not call for any  

interference by this Court.

7. This Court in Jasbir Kaur case (supra) held that the Tribunal is  

required  to  make  a  just  and  reasonable  Award  determining  the  

compensation to be paid to the dependents of the victim of a fatal  

motor  vehicle  accident.   Explaining  the  concept  of  just  and  

4

reasonable Award in the context of a motor vehicle accident claim,  

this Court held as follows:

“It  has  to  be  kept  in  view  that  the  Tribunal  constituted  under  the  Act  as  provided in  Section  168 is  required  to  make an award determining the amount  of compensation  which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn  appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in  mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly  be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be  to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected  to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly  indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a  bonanza: not a source of profit; but the same should not be  a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh  the  various  factors  and  quantify  the  amount  of  compensation, which should be just. What would be "just"  compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden  rule  applicable  to  all  cases  for  measuring  the  value  of  human  life  or  a  limb.  Measure  of  damages  cannot  be  arrived  at  by precise mathematical  calculations.  It  would  depend  upon  the  particular  facts  and  circumstances,  and  attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method  or  mode  adopted  for  assessing  compensation  has  to  be  considered in the background of "just" compensation which  is  the  pivotal  consideration.  Though  by  use  of  the  expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion  is  vested  on  the  Tribunal,  the  determination  has  to  be  rational,  to be done by a judicious approach and not the  outcome  of  whims,  wild  guesses  and  arbitrariness.  The  expression  "just"  denotes  equitability,  fairness  and  reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be  just.  (See  Helen C. Rebello Vs.  Maharashtra State Road  Transport Corporation, AIR1998SC3191).”

8. Keeping the above principle in view, we must now examine  

the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Judgment under  

Appeal  that the income of the deceased Virender  Singh is  to be  

taken at Rs.24,000/- per month.  The reasoning of the High Court in  

that regard is as follows:

5

“  While trying to assess his income, the learned Tribunal  has conclused that as a driver he must have been earning  Rs.3900/- per month and his total income would have been  7500/-  per  month.   However,  considering  the  fact  that  Vijendra  Singh would have earned Rs.3900/- per month as  a driver, it is difficult to believe that he would have earned  merely Rs.3600/- from the two buses owned by him.  There  is no evidence produced by the respondent No.3 to show  that the buses were not being plied.  Considering the lack of  transportation buses are plied. Thus, it is difficult to believe  that  in  the  transportation  business,  owner  of  two  buses  would have earned merely Rs.3600/- per month from two  buses.   Therefore,  the  logic  of  the  learned  Tribunal  is  highly  questionable.   If  the  figure  of  Rs.3900/-  has  a  reasonable assessment of the salary of a driver, obviously  the  owner  of  two  buses  would  have  earned  more  than  Rs.3900/- to the driver of his own bus.  Thus, a reasonable  assessment  would  be  that  the  owner  of  bus  would  be  earning  atleast  Rs.10,000/-  from  each  bus.   Therefore,  Vijendra  Singh’s  income should  be  taken  as  Rs.23,900/-  per month or Rs.24,000/- in the round.”

In other words, in view of the Tribunal’s conclusion that Vijender  

Singh was earning an amount of Rs.3900/- in his capacity as the  

driver of the bus per month, the High Court reached the conclusion  

that  in  his  capacity  as  the  owner  of  three  buses,  he  must  be  

deriving a much higher income from the buses.    We agree with the  

logic  of the High Court.   However,  the quantum of such income  

would depend upon various factors, such as; whether it is a stage  

carriage or a contract carriage, the condition of the bus, its seating  

capacity, the route on which it is plying, the cost of maintenance,  

the taxes to be paid on such business etc.  But, the question is  

whether the income (either gross or net) derived by the owner of a  

bus  could  legally  form the  basis  for  determining  the  amount  of  

compensation payable to his dependents, if he happens to die in a  

motor vehicle accident.

6

9. In our opinion, such an income cannot form the legal basis for  

determining the compensation.

10. In  Jasbir  Kaur  case (supra),  the  claim  was  based  on  an  

assertion that the deceased was an agriculturist earning an amount  

of Rs.10,000/- per month by cultivating his land.  Dealing with the  

question, this Court held:

“8. xxxxxxxxx.  The land possessed by the deceased still  remains  with  the  claimants  as  his  legal  heirs.  There  is  however a possibility that the claimants may be required to  engage  persons  to  look  after  agriculture.  Therefore,  the  normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly  applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source.  Attendant circumstances have to be considered.”   

11. Coming  to  the  case  on  hand,  the  claim  is  based  on  the  

assertion that the deceased owned agricultural land apart from the  

abovementioned  three  mini-buses.   The  High  Court  rejected  the  

claim insofar as it is based on the income from the land, on the  

ground that the income would still continue to accrue to the benefit  

of the family.  Unfortunately, the High Court failed to see that the  

same  logic  would  be  applicable  even  to  the  income  from  the  

abovementioned three buses.  The asset (three mini-buses) would  

still continue with the family and fetch income.  The only difference,  

perhaps,  would  be  that  during  his  life  time  the  deceased  was  

managing the buses, but now, the claimants may have to engage  

some competent person to manage the asset, which, in turn, would  

require  some payment to be made to such a manager.   To the  

extent  of  such  payment,  there  would  be  a  depletion  in  the  net  

7

income accruing to the claimants out of the asset.  Therefore, the  

amount required for  engaging the service of a manager and the  

salary  payable to a driver  – as it  is  asserted  that  the deceased  

himself used to drive one of the three buses – would be the loss to  

the claimants.  In the normal course the claimants are expected to  

adduce evidence as to what would be the quantum of depletion in  

the  income  from  the  abovementioned  asset  on  account  of  the  

abovementioned factors.  Unfortunately, no such evidence was led  

by the claimants.

12. In the circumstances, the Judgment under Appeal cannot be  

sustained as the finding of the High Court that the claimants lost an  

amount  of  Rs.16,000/-  per  month  due  to  the  death  of  Vijender  

Singh is neither based on any evidence nor the logic adopted by the  

High Court for arriving at such a conclusion is right.  In the normal  

course, the matter should have been remitted to the Tribunal for  

further  evidence  for  ascertaining  of  the  basis  upon  which  the  

compensation is to be determined.  But having regard to the fact  

that  the  accident  occurred  a decade ago,  we do not  propose to  

remit the matter for further evidence.   

13. The  High  Court  opined  that  the  deceased  would  have  

contributed  an  amount  of  Rs.16,000/-  per  month  to  the  

dependents, whereas the Tribunal opined that the deceased would  

have contributed an amount of Rs.5,000/-.  Both the Courts below  

proceeded to arrive at the abovementioned amounts on the basis  

8

that as a driver of one of the buses, he was getting a salary of  

Rs.3,900/- per month.  In the circumstances, making a reasonable  

conjecture  that  somebody  to  be  employed  for  the  purpose  of  

managing  the  business  of  the  three  mini-buses,  would  certainly  

demand a higher salary than a driver,  we think it  reasonable to  

notionally fix the salary of such manager at Rs.10,000/- per month.  

The  said  amount  coupled  with  the  salary  of  one  driver,  i.e.,  

Rs.3,900/-  would  be  the  loss  sustained  by  the  family  from  the  

income arising out of the asset.  Computed on the basis of the said  

figure and applying the same multiplier of 16 which was applied by  

both the courts below, the amount of compensation payable to the  

claimants would be:          

13,900 x 12 x 16 = Rs.26,68,800/-

14. The Judgment under Appeal shall stand modified accordingly  

and remain unaltered in all other respects.  Appeal stands disposed  

of.

………………………………….J. ( P. SATHASIVAM )

………………………………….J. ( J. CHELAMESWAR )

New Delhi; February 10, 2012.

9