NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11495 OF 2018 (Arising from Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22334/2017)

Ramla and others ..Appellants

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited and others ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. The claimants are before this Court seeking further

enhancement of compensation from Rs. 21,53,000/­ awarded by

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.   By the impugned

judgment, the High Court enhanced the compensation from

Rs.11,83,000/­ to Rs.21,53,000/­.

1

3. In the accident that occurred on 10.05.2008, the deceased

Ismail succumbed to death due to grievous injuries.   The wife

(about 22 years), two children (aged about 3 years and 9 months

respectively) and aged father (about 90 years of age) of the

deceased  moved a claim petition before the  Motor Accidents

Claim Tribunal, Vatakara (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Tribunal’) seeking a total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/­.  The

Tribunal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.12,000/­ for the purpose of compensation and while

deducting  half  amount towards  personal expenses,  awarded  a

total compensation of Rs.11,83,000/­ with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its

realization.

4. The respondent–Insurance Company filed an appeal before

the High Court against the award of the Tribunal, whereas the

claimants filed cross objections seeking enhancement in

compensation.   As mentioned supra, the High Court awarded a

sum of Rs.9,70,000/­ as an additional compensation, i.e., in

addition to the compensation of Rs.11,83,000/­ awarded by the

Tribunal. While doing so, the High Court took into consideration

the salary certificate (Exhibit A6) of the deceased issued by Al­

2

Rawabi  Food  Centre,  Doha  disclosing  a salary of 2500  Qatar

Riyals,  which is equivalent to  Rs.30,000/­ per  month.   The

salary certificate  was attested/counter  signed by the Assistant

Consulate Officer, Embassy of India, Doha, which also discloses

that the deceased was an employee of  Al­Rawabi Food Centre,

Doha during the relevant point of time.   In our considered

opinion,  the assessment of the  income of the deceased by the

High Court was just and proper.

5. Though we find that the overall compensation awarded by

the High Court is just and reasonable in respect of all the heads

(except under the head of loss of dependency), in our considered

opinion, the High Court has faulted in deducting 2/3rd of the total

income towards the  personal expenses  of the  deceased,  while

quantifying the compensation.   Taking into consideration the

high cost of living at Doha, as observed by the High Court as well

as the fact that the  deceased was having his  wife, two minor

children and aged father as dependants and as there is no other

earning member in the family of the deceased, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, a deduction of 40% of the salary for

the personal expenses would be appropriate for the purpose of

quantifying compensation.   Taking into consideration such

3

factors  including  the  factor  of  uncertainties in the job  in  that

Country as well as uncertainty in staying back in the said

country for a longer period and in the absence of any material to

show as to for how many years the deceased was having contract

to serve, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.

28,00,000/­ inclusive of the compensation awarded by the High

Court, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of

filing the claim petition till  its realization.   The said amount is

just and reasonable  under the  facts and circumstances of the

case.   

6. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/­ in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal,

we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to

is higher than the same as  mentioned supra.   There is no

restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding

the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court

under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award

“just compensation”.  The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and

welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is

reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record.   It

cannot be said to have become time­barred.  Further, there is no

4

need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The

Courts  are  duty  bound to  award just compensation. (See the

judgments of this Court in the cases of (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal

Singh1  (b) Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram2  (c)  Ibrahim v.

Raju3).

7. Accordingly, the following order is made:

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

Rs. 28,00,000/­ along with interest at the rate of 8% from the

date of filing the claim petition till its realization, as awarded by

the High Court, which shall be paid by the respondent –

Insurance Company, within a period of two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the amount

of compensation, if any, already paid to the claimants, shall be

deducted out of the enhanced compensation.

8. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

………………………………..J. [N.V. RAMANA]

New Delhi;    ……..……………………………………J. November 30, 2018.    [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] 1 (2003) 2 SCC 274. 2 (2018) SCC Online SC 1546 (Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018). 3 (2011) 10 SCC 634.

5