Page 1

1

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3238 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 1865 OF 2014)

CHANDERI DEVI & ANR                    …APPELLANTS Vs.

JASPAL SINGH & ORS                    ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

 V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

    Leave granted.

2.   This appeal has been filed by the appellant-

claimants  against  the  Judgment  and  order  dated  

25.07.2013 passed in FAO No. 1652 of 2010 by the  

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh,  

wherein  the  High  Court  has  partly  allowed  the  

appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation to  

Rs.17,10,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the  

NON REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short  

‘the Tribunal’) in its award.  

3.  The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  

to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain  

whether  the  appellants  are  entitled  for  further  

enhancement  of  compensation  as  prayed  in  this  

appeal.  

  On  the  intervening  night  of  29/30.9.2006,  

Surinder Singh, Chander Singh and Bijender Singh  

were travelling in a car bearing registration No.  

CH-03-P-8405  being  driven  by  Jaspal  Singh  

(respondent  No.1)  and  owned  by  Karnail  Singh  

(respondent  No.2)  which  hit  a  car  bearing  

registration No.DL-9CA-7393 being driven by Vikas  

Khanna near Piao-Maniari on G.T. Road, Sonepat. All  

the  injured  were  shifted  to  General  Hospital,  

Sonepat. Surinder Singh-husband of appellant No.1  

and  father  of  appellant  No.2  succumbed  to  his  

injuries on 04.10.2006.

4.  The appellants filed a claim petition before the  

Tribunal,  Sonepat  claiming  Rs.1,00,00,000/-  as  

compensation on the ground that the deceased was 32  

years of age at the time of his death, and he had

Page 3

3

been working as an Indian Cook in Moghul Tandoor  

Restaurant, Bruckenkopfstr, 1/2 Heidelberg, Germany  

and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month and that  

Rs.1,00,000/-  was  spent  on  his  treatment,  

transportation and last rites.

5.  The  Tribunal  on  consideration  of  the  facts,  

circumstances  and  evidence  on  record,  passed  an  

award of Rs.2,00,000/- with an interest at the rate  

of 7.5% per annum.  

6.  Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation  

awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants filed FAO  

No.1652 of 2010 before the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana  at  Chandigarh,  wherein  the  High  Court  

enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.17,10,000/-.  

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed this  

appeal.

7.  It has been contended by the learned counsel for  

the appellants that the courts below ought to have  

appreciated that the deceased was about 32 years of  

age and was employed as an Indian Cook in Moghul  

Tandoor Restaurant, Bruckenkopfstr, 1/2 Heidelberg,  

Germany, earning about 1145 Euros per month.

Page 4

4

8.  Further, it has been contended by the learned  

counsel  that  the  High  Court  ought  not  to  have  

arbitrarily fixed the income of the deceased at the  

time  of  his  death  at  Rs.1,00,000/-  per  annum,  

without  properly  appreciating  the  facts  and  

evidence  on  record  and  assigning  valid  reasons,  

while  fixing  the  same.  It  is  contended  by  the  

learned  counsel  that  this  Court  has  held  that  

courts have the power to fix any reasonable amount  

in  favour  of  the  claimants  in  the  absence  of  

documentary proof of monthly income of the deceased  

and  also  that  if  the  amount  claimed  by  the  

claimants was reasonable, then the same could be  

relied on by the courts & award just and reasonable  

compensation.  Further,  it  is  contended  by  the  

learned  counsel  that  in  the  instant  case,  the  

appellants  had  produced  the  certificates  showing  

the income of the deceased as well as the income  

tax  payments  made  by  the  deceased  for  the  year  

ending 2006, which ought to have been considered by  

the courts below while determining the income of  

the deceased to calculate the loss of dependency of  

the appellants.

Page 5

5

9.   Further, it is contended that the High Court  

ought to have considered the future prospects of  

the deceased to be added to the actual income of  

the  deceased  while  calculating  the  loss  of  

dependency as per the law laid down by this Court  

in  the  case  of  Sarla  Verma  v. Delhi  Transport  

Corporation and Another1.

10. On the other hand, it has been contended by the  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-Insurance  

Company that the amount awarded by the High Court  

to  the  appellants  as  compensation  is  just  and  

reasonable  and  does  not  call  for  any  upward  

revision. In support of the same, reliance has been  

placed on the decisions of this Court in State of  

Haryana v.  Jasbir Kaur2 and  Divisional Controller  

K.S.R.T.C. v.  Mahadev Shetty3,  wherein it is held  

that the amount of compensation should be just and  

reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a  

source of profit but at the same time it should not  

be a pittance.  

1 (2009)6 SCC 121 2 (1999)1 SCC 90 3 (2003) 7 SCC 197

Page 6

6

11. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties & perused the record. The courts below have  

considered the evidence produced on record by the  

appellants,  particularly  the  passport,  salary  

certificate, income-tax certificates and whether or  

not the deceased was employed in Germany at the  

time of the accident to ascertain the annual income  

of the deceased at the time of his death and the  

courts below found that the same cannot be assessed  

on the basis of the documents referred to above.  

The High Court found it to be just and reasonable  

to take the income of the deceased at the time of  

his death at Rs.8,333/- per month, which in our  

considered  view  is  definitely  on  the  lower  side  

keeping in view that the deceased was employed as a  

cook in an Indian restaurant in Germany. At the  

same time, to consider the income of the deceased  

at  Rs.62,975/-  per  month(i.e.  1145  Euros)  as  

contended by the appellants to calculate the loss  

of dependency of the appellants would definitely be  

on  the  higher  side.  Hence,  on  considering  the  

facts,  circumstances  of  the  case  and  plausibly  

estimating as to how much a cook of similar nature

Page 7

7

as the deceased would have earned in India in the  

year 2006, we are of the view that it would be just  

and reasonable for us to ascertain the income of  

the  deceased  at  the  time  of  his  death  at  

Rs.15,000/- per month. By adding 50% of the actual  

salary  as  provision  for  future  prospects,  the  

income  of  the  deceased  to  be  considered  for  

calculation of loss of dependency is Rs.22,500/-  

per month i.e. Rs.2,70,000/- per annum. Deducting  

10%  towards  income  tax  the  net  income  comes  to  

Rs.2,43,000/-  per  annum.  Further,  deducting  1/3rd  

towards personal expenses and applying the correct  

multiplier as per the legal principles laid down by  

this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the  

loss  of  dependency  would  come  to  Rs.25,92,000/-  

[(Rs.2,43,000/- (-) 1/3rd  of Rs.2,43,000/-) x 16].

12. Further,  we  award  Rs.1,00,000/-  towards  loss  of  

estate  to  the  appellant-wife  as  per  the  legal  

principles laid down by this Court in the case of  

Kalpanaraj  &  Ors.     v  .  Tamil  Nadu  State  Transport    

Corporation4,  Rs.25,000/-  towards  funeral  expenses  

and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the  

4 2014 (5) SCALE 479

Page 8

8

appellant-wife as per the principles laid down by  

this Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir  

Singh & Ors.5

13. Further, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to  

the  appellant-minor  towards  loss  of  love  and  

affection  of  her  father(deceased)  as  per  the  

decision of this Court in the case of Juju Kuruvila  

& Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.6.

14.  In the result, the appellants shall be entitled  

to compensation under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency  Rs.25,92,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Loss of love and  

affection Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 29,17,000/-

Further, an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the  

total amount of compensation awarded by this Court in  

this appeal as per the principles laid down by this  

Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.  

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy7.  

15.  Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal  and  award  an  

amount of Rs. 29,17,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from  

5  (2013) 9 SCC 54 6 (2013)9 SCC 166 7 (2011) 14 SCC 481

Page 9

9

the date of filing of the application till the date of  

payment. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed  

to deposit the sum payable to the appellant-minor with  

proportionate interest awarded by this Court in fixed  

deposit in any nationalised bank as per the preference  

of  appellant-No.1/guardian  till  the  appellant  No.  2  

attains  majority  with  the  liberty  to  the  appellant  

No.1/guardian to withdraw interest and such amount for  

her education, development and welfare by filing the  

appropriate  application  before  the  Motor  Accidents  

Claims Tribunal, Sonepat.

 The respondent-Insurance Company shall either pay  

the remaining amount of compensation with proportionate  

interest awarded by us by way of demand draft in favour  

of the appellant No.1 or deposit the same before the  

Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Sonepat  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]

Page 10

10

New Delhi,  March 31, 2015

Page 11

11

ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT     COURT NO.9               SECTION IVB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s)............/2015 arising from SLP(C)  No.1865/2014 CHANDERI DEVI & ANR                                Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS JASPAL SINGH & ORS                                 Respondent(s) Date : 31/03/2015 This matter was called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s)                      Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Dr. Meera Agarwal,Adv.

Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv.  Mr. Manohar Pratap, Adv.

                    Mr. S. K. Sabharwal,Adv.                       

 Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble  Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.

Leave granted. The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  Non-

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)    (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)