REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 7104-7105 OF 2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                                ... PETITIONER   

Versus

INDIRO DEVI & ORS.                                            ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

S.A. BOBDE, J.

The deceased was 39 years old.  He was employed with the Food

Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’).  He met with an

accident when the three-wheeler he was travelling in collided with a

rashly  driven  Canter  truck  and  died.  The  claimants  claimed

compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter

referred to as “Tribunal”).

1

2. These petitions arise from the order dated 27.08.2015 passed in

C.R. No. 408 of 2006 and the Civil Appeal  FAO No. 4086 of 2005 by the

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh.   The  Insurance

Company is before us (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) in

the instant petitions.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash

and negligent driving and held the owner of the truck, the insurer and

the  driver  jointly  and  severally  liable  to  pay  the  amount  of

compensation determined.

4. The  Tribunal  passed  an  award  of  a  sum  of   

Rs.  12,90,000/-  in  favour  of  the  claimants  recoverable  @  9%  per

annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its realization from

the respondents jointly and severally.   

5. The  issue  in  this  case  revolves  around  the  income  of  the

deceased. On behalf of the accounts section of the employer of the

deceased, it was deposed that the deceased was getting Rs. 8848/- as

gross monthly salary.  The deponent proved the salary certificate.  The

amount of salary was not questioned.  The Tribunal passed the award

on the basis that the salary he was receiving i.e. Rs. 8848/-.

6. The Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the Income

Tax Returns of the deceased showed an income of Rs. 2,42,606/- per

annum for  the  assessment  year  2004-05  and  Rs.  2,17,130  for  the 2

assessment year 2003-04.     The Tribunal held that the claimants had

not led any evidence to explain the contradictions between the two

figures of income emerging from the evidence of the employer of the

deceased and the income tax record, and passed the award relying on

the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased.

7. In a revision carried to the High Court by the Insurance Company

and appeal by the claimants, the High Court took the income of the

deceased as found in the income tax assessment and provided for 50%

increase  as  future  prospect.   The  High  Court  applied  the  lower

multiplier of 15 instead of 16 and after making a deduction of 1/4th for

the personal expenses, increased the compensation to Rs. 44,03,980/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of payment.  The amount payable was tabulated as follows:-

FATAL ACCIDENTS Date of accident

27.2.2004

Age 39 years Occupatio n

Employee in FCI 8848/-

Claimants Widow, 4 children and mother Heads of claim Tribunal High Court

Sl.No. Amount (Rs.)

Amount (Rs.

1. Income 10,000 (monthly)

2,42,606 (annual)

2. Add, % of increase 50% 3,63.909 3. Less, Deduction 2,72,932 4. Multiplicand  (annualized  by

multiplying 12) 80,000 2,72,932

5. Multiplier 16 15 6. Loss of dependence 12,80,000 40,93,980 7. Medical Expenses & Transportation

3

8. Loss  of  Consortium  &  funeral expenses

10,000 1,00,000

9. Loss of love and affection 2,00,000 10. Loss to estate 5000 11. Funeral expenses 5000

Total 12,90,000 44,03,980

8. It was argued before us on behalf of the petitioner that the

High Court has committed a gross error and perversity in taking into

account the income of the deceased as per the income tax returns.

According to the petitioner, the income of the deceased was Rs. 8848

per month, i.e. the amount according to the salary certificate of the

deceased and the High Court  ought  to  have relied  upon the salary

certificate for the calculation of the compensation.

9. We  have  given  our  anxious  consideration  to  this

contention.  There is no doubt that if the salary certificate is taken into

account the salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 1,06,176/-

since  the  gross  salary  was   

Rs.8848 per month.  That, however, in our view does not mean that

the income of the deceased as stated in the Income Tax return should

be totally ignored.  It is not possible to agree with the observation of

the Tribunal that it was necessary for the claimants to “explain the said

contradiction” between two figures of income.  The claimants had led

reliable  evidence that  the deceased had returned an income of  Rs.

2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05.  This piece of evidence

4

has not been discredited. Indeed, it  was possible that the deceased

had income from other sources also. There is nothing in the law which

requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the

basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and fair compensation

to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.

10. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with

the judgment of the High Court.  The SLPs are accordingly dismissed.

….………………………………..J. [S.A. BOBDE]

….………………………………..J.  [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

NEW DELHI  JULY 03, 2018

5