REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11042  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17321 of 2016)

Vimla Devi & Ors.             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.             ….Respondent(s)    

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by  the claimants against

the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2015

1

passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 1739 of

2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal

filed by the claimants and affirmed the award dated

05.12.2005 passed by the MACT Chomu (Jaipur) in

MAC Case No. 48/2005.   

3. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the

case, it is  necessary to  set  out the  relevant facts

hereinbelow.

4. The appellants are the claimants/plaintiffs

whereas the respondents are the non­

applicants/defendants  in the claim petition out of

which this appeal arises.

5. One  Rajendra  Prasad aged around  25 years

was travelling in the passenger Bus bearing No.RJ­

07­P­2151 as its bona fide passenger on 03.06.2003

for going to a place called  "Chomu".  When the Bus

reached near Police Station, Chomu, a Truck

2

bearing No. HR­55A­7729, which was going towards

Jaipur from  Chomu came on a high speed and

dashed against Bus. The impact of dash against the

Bus was so violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was

sitting  inside the Bus, sustained grievous  injuries

resulting in his instant death. This led to filing of

the FIR No. 214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.

6. It is this incident, which gave rise to initiation

of two legal proceedings, namely, criminal and civil.

So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, a

charge sheet (1/2003) was filed by the State against

the  driver  of the  offending  Truck in the  Court  of

Magistrate under Section 304­A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).  

7. So far as the civil  proceedings are concerned

with which we are concerned  in  this  appeal  were

filed by the appellants herein (claimants), who are

the   wife   and the two minor children of the

3

deceased, against the Insurance Company

(respondent  No.  1),  driver (respondent  No.  2)  and

the owner (respondent No. 3) of the offending Truck

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Motor

Accident Compensation Tribunal,  Chomu claiming

therein to award reasonable compensation to them

for the loss sustained on account of untimely death

of  Rajendra Prasad­their  only bread earner  in the

family.  

8. The appellants along with their claim petition

filed all those documents, which were filed by the

State in the criminal proceedings against the driver,

such as   FIR, charge sheet, site plan, post mortem

report of the deceased, registration of Truck No. HR

­A­7729, insurance coverage, mechanical inspection

report, copy  of  notice issued to the  owner  under

Section 133 of the Act etc.

4

9. So far as the driver and owner of the offending

Truck are concerned, since inception both remained

ex parte in the proceedings. So far as the Insurance

Company (insurer) is concerned, they alone entered

appearance and filed the written statement. The

Insurance Company, however, contended  inter alia

in their written statement that firstly, the owner of

the Truck did not give any intimation to the

Insurance Company; Secondly, the owner and the

driver of the bus were not impleaded as party in the

proceedings; and Thirdly, the owner of the offending

Truck did not send a copy of the driving license of

the driver to the Insurance Company to enable them

to make an inquiry about its genuineness (see Para

3 of the award).  

10. The claimants examined three witnesses in

support of their case. The Insurance Company did

not examine any witness. By award dated

5

05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’

claim petition. It was held that the claimants failed

to prove the accident including involvement of

offending  Truck,  which  caused  death  of  Rajendra

Prasad. It was held that though the claimants filed

the documents but since those documents were not

exhibited, the Insurance Company could not cross­

examine the claimants’ witnesses on the

documents. In short, the Tribunal held that the

claimants  failed  to prove  the accident  for  want of

evidence  and the  one  adduced  was  not exhibited

and hence was of no use. These were basically the

two findings on which the claim petition was

dismissed.   

11. The claimants felt aggrieved and filed appeal in

the High Court for   Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. By

impugned order, the High Court dismissed the

appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present

6

appeal by way of special leave by the claimants in

this Court.

12. Heard Mr. Maruf Khan, learned counsel for the

appellants and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned

senior counsel for respondent No.1.  

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeal and while

setting  aside the impugned order  allow  the  claim

petition filed by the appellants (claimants) and

award reasonable compensation to the  appellants

as indicated infra.

14.   In our considered opinion, the approach,

reasoning and the conclusion of the Tribunal and

the High Court for dismissing the appellants’ claim

petition/appeal was not in accordance with law

inasmuch as both did not deal with any issue

arising in the case. The High Court while dismissing

7

the appeal simply affirmed the award of the

Tribunal without assigning any reason.

15. Before  we  examine the factual  matrix  of the

case at hand, it is apposite to take note of the

provisions of the  Act,  which have relevance  while

deciding the claim petition.

16. At the outset,  we may reiterate  as has  been

consistently said by this Court in a series of cases

that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation

enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor

accident who suffer  bodily  injury or die untimely.

The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the

victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in

law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and

other proceedings while prosecuting the claim

petition filed under the Act for claiming

compensation for the loss sustained by them in the

accident.        

8

17. Section 158 of the Act casts a duty on a person

driving a motor vehicle to produce certain

certificates, driving licence and permit on being

required by a police officer to do so in relation to the

use of the vehicle. Sub­section (6), which was added

by way of amendment in 1994 to Section 158 casts

a duty on the officer in­charge of the police station

to forward  a copy  of the information (FIR)/report

regarding any accident involving death or bodily

injury to any person within 30 days from the date of

information to the Claim Tribunal having

jurisdiction and also send one copy to the

concerned insurer. This sub­section also casts a

duty on the owner of the offending vehicle, if a copy

of the information is  made available to him, to

forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and the

insurer of the vehicle.  

9

18. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to treat the

report of the accident on its receipt as  if it is  an

application made by the claimant for award of the

compensation to  him  under the  Act by virtue of

Section 166 (4) of the Act and thus has jurisdiction

to decide such application on merits in accordance

with law.     

19. The object of Section 158(6) read with Section

166(4) of the Act is essentially to reduce the period

of pendency of claim case and quicken the process

of determination of compensation amount by

making it mandatory for registration of motor

accident claim within one month from the date of

receipt of FIR of the accident without the claimants

having to file a claim petition. (See Jai Prakash vs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,  2010 (2) SCC 607).

10

20. There are three Sections, which empower the

Claims Tribunal to award compensation to the

claimant, viz., Section 140, Section 163­A and

Section­166 of the Act.  

21. So far as Section 140 of the Act is concerned,

it deals with the cases for award of compensation

based on the principle of no fault liability.  

22. So far as Section 163A of the Act is concerned,

it  deals  with  special  provisions  as to  payment  of

compensation and is based on structured formula

as  specified in  Second Schedule  appended  to the

Act.

23. While claiming compensation payable under

Section 140 and Section 163A of the Act, the

claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act,

neglect or default of the person concerned against

whom the claim is made by virtue of Section 140 (4)

and Section 163A ( 2 ) of the Act.

11

24. So far as Section 166 of the Act is concerned,

it also deals with payment of compensation. Section

168 of the Act deals with award of the Claims

Tribunal  whereas Section 169 of the Act  provides

procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal.  As

has been held by this Court (Three Judge Bench),

the claim petition filed under the Act is neither a

suit nor an adversarial  lis  in the traditional sense

but it is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by

the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act, which is a

complete Code in itself. (See  United India

Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.,

2011 (10) SCC 509).

25. Keeping  in view the aforementioned principle

of law when we examine  the facts  of the  case at

hand,  we are of the considered opinion that the

Claims Tribunal and the High Court were not

12

justified in dismissing the appellants’ claim petition.

In our view, the appellants’ claim petition ought to

have been allowed for awarding reasonable

compensation to the appellants in accordance with

law. This we say for the following reasons.

26. First, the appellants had adduced sufficient

evidence to  prove the  accident  and  the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle, which resulted in death of Rajendra Prasad.

27. Second, the appellants filed material

documents to prove the factum of the accident and

the persons involved therein.

28. Third, the documents clearly established the

identity of the Truck involved in the accident, the

identity of the driver driving the truck, the identity

of the owner of the Truck, the name of the insurer of

the offending Truck, the period of coverage of

insurance of the Truck, the details of the lodging of

13

FIR in the concerned police station in relation to the

accident.  

29. In our view,  what  more documents  could be

filed than the documents filed by the appellants to

prove the factum of  the accident and the persons

involved therein.  

30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the

Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since

inception and, therefore, neither contested the

appellants’ claim petition nor entered into the

witness box to rebut the allegations of the

appellants made in the claim petition and the

evidence.   An adverse inference against both could

be drawn.

31. Fifth, so far as the Insurance Company is

concerned, they also did not examine any witness to

rebut the appellants’ evidence. The Insurance

Company could have adduced evidence by

14

examining the driver of the offending Truck as their

witness but it was not done.

32. Sixth, on the other hand, the appellants

examined  three  witnesses  and  thereby discharged

their initial burden to prove the case.  

33. Seventh, if the Court did not exhibit the

documents despite the appellants referring them at

the time of recording evidence then in such event,

the  appellants cannot  be  denied  of their right to

claim the compensation on such ground. In our

opinion, it was nothing but a procedural lapse,

which could not be made basis to reject the claim

petition. It was more so when the appellants

adduced  oral and  documentary  evidence to  prove

their case and the respondents did nothing to

counter them.

34. In the light of the aforementioned seven

reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the

15

appellants  were able to prove the factum of the

accident so also the factum of rash and negligent

act of the driver causing the  accident. It is also

proved that the offending Truck was insured with

respondent No. 1 at the time of accident and was

owned by respondent No. 3.

35. This takes us to consider the next question as

to how much compensation the appellants are

entitled to claim for the death of their bread earner­

Rajendra Prasad.  

36. It has come in the evidence that the deceased

was around 25 years of age and left behind him his

wife  and two minor children. It  has also come  in

evidence that he was earning around Rs.10,000/­

per month.

37. Having regard to all the facts and

circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to

take Rs.5000/­ to be his monthly income.

16

Deducting 1/3rd  towards personal expenses, we get

around Rs.3300/­. The appellants are also entitled

to claim loss of future prospect at the rate of 40%,

which works out to Rs.1320/­ thus making a total

income of Rs.4620/­.  Applying the multiplier of 18,

we get Rs.4620x12 x18 = Rs.9,97,920/­.         .  

38. To the  aforementioned  amount,  we  add  and

accordingly award Rs.15,000/­ for funeral

expenses, Rs.15,000/­ for loss of the estate and

Rs.1,00,000/­ for loss of spousal and parental

consortium. In this way, the appellants (claimants)

are held entitled to claim Rs.11,27,920/­ by way of

compensation from the respondents jointly and

severally. The amount awarded by this Court shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of

claim petition till realization.

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set

17

aside.  The appellants’  claim petition  is  allowed  in

part as indicated above against the respondents

jointly and severally.  

40. Respondent No.1­Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the awarded sum within 3

months with the Claims Tribunal for being paid to

the appellants after proper verification.

  ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                  …...……..................................J.                        [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; November 16, 2018  

18