Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1415 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4969/2014)

JITENDRA KHIMSHANKAR TRIVEDI & ORS.     ..Appellants

Versus

KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR & ORS.           ..Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Delay condoned.   Leave granted.

2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation  

awarded by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 4021  

of 1998 dated 16.1.2012, the claimants have filed this appeal  

seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of  

Smt.  Jayvantiben  Jitendra  Trivedi  in  a  motor  accident  on  

21.9.1990.

3. Undisputed  facts  emerging  from  this  case  can  be  

briefly stated as under:-  On 21.9.1990 respondent No.1 while  

driving tempo bearing registration No. GQY-4701 in a rash and

Page 2

2

negligent  manner  lost  the  control  over  it  and  hit  Smt.  

Jayvantiben  Jitendra  Trivedi  (deceased)  who  subsequently  

succumbed  to  injuries.    Appellant  No.1  is  the  husband  of  

deceased  and  appellant  Nos.  2  to   5  are  husband’s  sisters,  

daughter  and  father-in-law  respectively  of  the  deceased  

Jayvantiben.   Claimants  filed claim petition before the  Motor  

Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Bhuj-Kachchh,  Gujarat,  interalia,  

claiming  compensation  under  different  heads  to  the  tune  of  

Rs.2,96,480/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per  

annum.  The appellants averred in the claim petition that the  

deceased was  a  housewife  at  the time of  accident  and was  

aged  22 years and that she was doing embroidery and knitting  

work and was earning Rs.900/- per month from the said work  

and was maintaining her family.  Respondents No. 1 and 2 did  

not enter into defence.  Respondent No.3–Insurance Company  

has filed counter  statement  denying averments  made in  the  

claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is  

on the higher side.  

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence,  

the  tribunal  came to  the  conclusion  that  the  death  of  Smt.  

Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi  was caused due to the rash and

Page 3

3

negligent  driving  of  respondent  No.1.   Based  on  the  oral  

testimony of  witnesses,  tribunal  came to the conclusion that  

deceased was earning Rs.900/- per month.  Relying upon the  

decision  in  General  Manager,  Kerala  S.R.T.C.  vs.  Susamma  

Thomas &  Ors.1,  the  tribunal  assessed  the  income  of  the  

deceased at  Rs.1,500/-  per  month.   After  deducting 1/3rd for  

personal expenses and after adopting multiplier of 18, tribunal  

has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.2,16,000/-. Adding  

conventional damages Rs.8,000/-,  vide award dated 30.4.1998,  

the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- with  

interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.

5. Being  aggrieved  by  the  award  of  the  tribunal,  

respondents  filed  appeal  being  First  Appeal  No.4021/1998  

under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before the  

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.  Vide impugned judgment  

dated  16.1.2012,  the  High  Court  partly  allowed  the  appeal  

taking the income of the deceased at Rs.1,350/- per month and  

deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the High Court held that  

the claimants are entitled to compensation of   Rs.2,09,400/-  

along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from  

1 (1994)  2 SCC 176

Page 4

4

the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the  

owner  has  neither  filed  written  statement  nor  contested  the  

claim petition before the tribunal  and while so the insurance  

company cannot challenge the award on merits.  It was further  

submitted that the High Court did not keep in view that the  

deceased was self-employed person apart from being a home  

maker  and  while  so,  the  High  Court  erred  in  reducing  the  

compensation as well as the rate of interest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that  

in the absence of furnishing documentary proof like receipts of  

work, accounts books,  any authenticated evidence of income  

no reliance can be placed on oral testimony to prove that the  

deceased was earning income as self-employed at the time of  

accident.  Further, it is asserted that the deceased being self-

employed  therefore  no  enhancement  in  income  could  be  

lawfully  granted  in  the  light  of  future  prospects  of  the  

deceased.

8. Admittedly, claimants adduced only oral testimony of  

the  witnesses  to  substantiate  their  claim that  deceased was  

self-employed  and  was  earning  Rs.900/-  per  month.   Smt.

Page 5

5

Godavariben   Khimshankar  Trivedi–mother-in-law  and  Shri  

Khimshankar  Raguram Trivedi,  father-in-law  have  deposed  to  

the effect  that deceased at the time  of accident was doing  

tailoring, embroidery and knitting and was earning  Rs.900/- per  

month.  They further deposed that their daughters were also  

doing  the  same  work  as  the  deceased  Jayvantiben  Jitendra  

Trivedi was then doing and that  their daughters were earning  

Rs.3,000/-  per  month and had the deceased been alive,  she  

would have also earned Rs.3,000/- per month.

9. The tribunal observed that in the district of Kachchh  

embroidery  work,   stitching   work  and  local  traditional  

embroidery work is doing well and had the deceased been alive  

she would have  earned Rs.1,500/- per month. Deducting 1/3rd  

for personal  expenses and adopting multiplier  of 18, tribunal  

has  calculated  the  loss  of  dependency  at  Rs.2,16,000/-  

(Rs.1000  x 12 x 18 ).  Though in their cross-examination,  Smt.  

Godavariben Khimshankar Trivedi  and Khimshankar Raguram  

Trivedi  deposed that  they did not  keep voucher and account  

books,  reasoning  of  the  tribunal  that  the  embroidery  and  

tailoring work is doing well in the district of Kachchh and that  

the deceased would have earned not less than Rs.1,500/- per

Page 6

6

month  is  well  merited.   It  is  to  be  pointed  out  that  the  

respondents have not adduced any evidence to prove that the  

deceased was not doing any embroidery or tailoring work or the  

like.   While  so, in the light of the factual findings recorded by  

the  tribunal,   High  Court  was  not  justified  in  reducing  the  

income  of  the  deceased  to  Rs.1,350/-  per  month   from  

Rs.1,500/-.

10. As noticed earlier, tribunal has taken the income of  

the  deceased  at  Rs.1,500/-   whereas   the  High  Court   has  

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,350/- per month.  

As observed by the tribunal, embroidery work, stitching work  

and  local  traditional  embroidery  work  was  doing  well  in  the  

district of Kachchh and there was good earning.   Considering  

the  nature  of  the  work  and  the  evidence  of  claimants’  

witnesses-father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, had  

the deceased Jayvantiben been alive she would have earned  

not less than Rs.3,000/- per month.

11. Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi  was not  

self-employed  doing  embroidery  and  tailoring  work,  the  fact  

remains that she was a housewife and a home maker.  It is hard  

to   monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother.  The

Page 7

7

services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties  

are never fixed.  Courts have recognized the contribution made  

by the wife to the house is  invaluable and that it  cannot be  

computed in terms of money.  A house-wife/home-maker does  

not work  by the clock  and she is in constant  attendance of  

the family throughout and such services rendered by the home  

maker has to be necessarily kept in view while calculating the  

loss  of  dependency.   Thus  even  otherwise,  taking  deceased  

Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi as the home maker, it is reasonable  

to  fix her income at Rs.3,000/- per month.  

12. Recognizing the services of the home maker and that  

domestic services have to be recognized in terms of money,  in  

Arun Kumar Agrawal  & Anr. vs.  National  Insurance Company  

Ltd. & Ors.2,  this Court has held as under:-    

“The alternative to imputing money values is to measure  the time taken to produce these services and compare  these with the time that is taken to produce goods and  services  which  are  commercially  viable.  One  has  to  admit  that  in  the  long  run,  the  services  rendered  by  women in the household sustain a supply of labour to  the  economy  and  keep  human  societies  going  by  weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If  we take these services for granted and do not attach  any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs  in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and  social fabric.

2 (2010) 9 SCC 218

Page 8

8

Household work performed by women throughout India  is  more  than US $612.8 billion  per  year  (Evangelical  Social Action Forum and Health Bridge, p. 17). We often  forget  that  the  time  spent  by  women  in  doing  household work as homemakers is the time which they  can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack  of  sensitiveness  and recognition  of  their  work mainly  contributes to women’s high rate of poverty and their  consequential oppression in society, as well as various  physical, social and psychological problems. The courts  and  tribunals  should  do  well  to  factor  these  considerations  in  assessing  compensation  for  housewives  who  are  victims  of  road  accidents  and  quantifying  the  amount  in  the  name  of  fixing  “just  compensation”.

13. The tribunal has awarded Rs.2,24,000/- as against the  

same,  claimants have not filed any appeal.   As against the  

award passed by the tribunal when the claimants have not filed  

any  appeal,  the  question  arises  whether  the  income  of  the  

deceased  could  be  increased  and  compensation  could  be  

enhanced.  In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,  

the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount  

of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by  

the  legal  standards.   The  power  of  the  courts  in  awarding  

reasonable  compensation  was  emphasized  by  this  Court  in  

Nagappa vs.  Gurudayal  Singh  &  Ors.3,  Oriental   Insurance  

Company Ltd. vs.  Mohd. Nasir & Anr.4, and  Ningamma & Anr.  

3 (2003) 2 SCC 274 4 (2009) 6 SCC 280

Page 9

9

vs.  United  India  Insurance Company  Ltd.5.   As  against  the  

award passed by the tribunal even though the claimants  have  

not  filed   any  appeal,  as  it  is  obligatory  on  the  part  of  

courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it  

is appropriate to increase the compensation.  

14. In order to award just and reasonable compensation  

income  of  the  deceased  is  taken  as  Rs.3000/-  per  month.  

Deducting  1/3rd for  personal  expenses  contribution  of  the  

deceased and the family is calculated at Rs.2,000/- per month.  

At the time of her death deceased Jayvantiben was aged about  

22  years,   proper  multiplier  to  be  adopted is  18.   Adopting  

multiplier  of  18,  total  loss  of  dependency  is  calculated  at  

Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.2000 x 12 x 18).  With respect to the award of  

compensation under conventional  heads, tribunal has awarded  

Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral  

expenses  totaling  Rs.8,000/-.   The  High  Court  has  awarded  

conventional  damages of Rs.15,000/-  i.e.  Rs.10,000/-  towards  

loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.  The  

courts below have not awarded any compensation towards loss  

of consortium and towards love and affection.  In Rajesh & Ors.  

5 (2009) 13 SCC 710

Page 10

10

vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.6, and Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma  

Mohan & Ors.7, this Court has awarded substantial amount of  

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

towards loss of love and affection.  Following the same, in the  

case  in  hand,  Rs.1,00,000/-  is  awarded  towards   loss  of  

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

affection  to  the  minor  children.   Towards  loss  of  estate  and  

funeral  expenses,  award  of  compensation  of  Rs.15,000/-  

awarded by the High Court  is maintained.  Thus, the claimants  

are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,47,000/-.   

15. As  against  the  award  passed  by  the  tribunal  even  

though the claimants have not preferred any appeal and even  

though the claimants  have then prayed for  compensation of  

Rs.2,96,480/-,  for  doing  complete  justice  to  the  parties,  

exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of  

India, we deem it appropriate to award enhanced compensation  

of Rs. 6,47,000/ to the claimants.  

16. In situation of this nature, for doing complete justice  

to the parties,  this Court has always exercised the jurisdiction  

under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   In  Oriental  6 (2013) 9 SCC 54 7 (2013) 9 SCC 166

Page 11

11

Insurance Company Limited vs. Brij Mohan and Ors.,8  this Court  

held as under:-  

“13.However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer. He had  suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a  great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in  his  favour  appears  to  be  on  a  lower  side.  In  the  aforementioned situation, although we reject the other  contentions  of  Ms  Indu  Malhotra,  we  are  inclined  to  exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142  of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award  may  be  satisfied  by  the  appellant  but  it  would  be  entitled  to  realise  the  same  from  the  owner  of  the  tractor  and  the  trolley  wherefor  it  would  not  be  necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for  recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor  Vehicles Act.

14. It is well settled that in a situation of this nature this  Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of  the Constitution of  India read with Article  136 thereof  can issue suit  directions  for  doing complete justice to  the parties”.

In  Deddappa & Ors.  vs.  Branch Manager,  National  Insurance  

Company Limited,9  it was observed as under:-

“26.  However,  as the appellant hails from the lowest  strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of  this nature, we should, in exercise of our extraordinary  jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,  direct Respondent 1 to pay the amount of claim to the  appellants herein and recover the same from the owner  of the vehicle viz. Respondent 2, particularly in view of  the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct  accordingly”.

17. The next question falling for our consideration is the  

rate  of  interest  to  be  awarded.   The  tribunal  has  awarded  

8 (2007) 7 SCC 56 9 (2008) 2 SCC 595

Page 12

12

interest at the rate of 15 per cent which was reduced to 12 per  

cent by the High Court.  The rate of interest awarded by both  

the courts is on higher side.  In Amresh Kumari vs. Niranjan Lal   

Jagdish Prasad Jain & Ors.10 and Mohinder Kaur & Ors. vs.  Hira  

Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and Anr.11, this Court has awarded the  

compensation amount payable to the claimants with interest at  

the rate of 9 per cent.

18. The compensation reduced by the High Court  from  

Rs.2,24,000/- to Rs.2,09,400/- is enhanced to Rs.6,47,000/-. The  

quantum of compensation claimed is Rs.2,96,480/- i.e. payable  

with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the filing  

of the claim petition till the date of  payment.  So far as the  

enhanced  compensation  of  Rs.3,50,520/-  is  payable  with  

interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the  

special leave petition till the date of realization. The enhanced  

compensation of Rs.3,50,520/- alongwith accrued interest shall  

be equally divided between the appellants No.1 and 4 Jitendra  

Khimshankar  Trivedi,  Ku.  Preeti  Jitendra Trivedi  (husband and  

daughter  respectively  of  the  deceased-Jayvantiben  Jitendra  

10 (2010) ACJ 551 11 (2007) ACJ  2123

Page 13

13

Khimshankar) in equal share.

19. In the result, impugned judgment of the High Court is  

modified  and the appeal  is partly allowed  in the above terms.  

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order to  

as to costs.

……………………..J.                                                                        (V. Gopala Gowda)  

……………………..J.                                                                       (R. Banumathi)  

New Delhi; February 3, 2015

Page 14

14

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment      COURT NO.12           SECTION IX                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.  4969/2014 JITENDRA KHIMSHANKAR TRIVEDI & ORS.               Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR & ORS.                        Respondent(s) Date : 03/02/2015 This petition was called on for  pronouncement of JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Ms. Manjeet Chawla,Adv.                       

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the  judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.  Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

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

Reportable judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)