Page 1

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO.7705 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 4895 OF 2014)

YERRAMMA & ORS.                     …APPELLANTS

             Vs.

G. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.            ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1.This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellants  

against  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  

05.06.2013 passed in M.F.A. No. 21576 of 2012 by  

the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at  

Dharwad,  wherein  the  High  Court  has  partly  

allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.

2.The  necessary  relevant  facts  are  stated  

hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to  

ascertain  whether  the  appellants  are  entitled  

for  relief  as  prayed  in  this  appeal.  On

Page 2

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       2

20.5.2011,  the  deceased  Gavisiddappa  was  

proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration  

No.KA034/K-3530  towards  S.P.  Circle,  when  the  

State Road Transport Corporation bus which was  

going ahead of him took a right turn to enter  

the  bus  depot  without  giving  the  right  turn  

indication.  The  motor  cycle  of  Gavisiddappa  

collided with the bus while the bus was taking a  

right turn. Due to the impact caused by this  

collision of the bus with the motorcycle, the  

deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed  

to the same while on the way to the hospital.

3.At the time of the accident, the deceased was  

working  as  an  ASI  in  the  Kudithini  Police  

Station and was drawing a salary of Rs. 26,000/-  

per  month.  The  deceased  was  the  only  earning  

member of the family for their livelihood.  

4.The  appellants  herein,  the  wife,  3  minor  

children  and  the  mother  of  the  deceased  

Gavisiddappa, filed a Claim Petition against the  

respondents before the MACT-XII, Bellary, vide  

MVC No.685 of 2011. The Tribunal calculated the  

compensation  amount  under  all  heads  at

Page 3

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       3

Rs.21,30,632/-.  The  Tribunal  also  apportioned  

the contributory negligence at 25% on the part  

of the deceased and 75% on the driver of the  

respondent-Corporation.  Thus,  after  25%  

deduction  from  the  amount  of  the  total  

compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of  

Rs.15,97,974/- payable by the respondents to the  

appellants vide order dated 29.12.2011.

5. Being  aggrieved  by  the  award  passed  by  the  

Tribunal,  the  appellants  filed  an  M.F.A.  

No.21576 of 2012 on 05.04.2012 before the High  

Court  of  Karnataka,  Circuit  Bench  at  Dharwad.  

After considering the facts, evidence on record  

and circumstances of the case, the High Court  

was  of  the  view  that  the  net  income  of  the  

deceased  at  the  time  of  his  death  was  

Rs.21,168/- per month.  As the claimants were 5  

in number, the High Court held that Rs.5292/-  

i.e.  1/4th of  the  income  had  to  be  deducted  

towards  personal  expenses  of  the  deceased  (as  

per  Sarla  Verma  &  Ors.  v. Delhi  Transport  

Corporation  &  Anr.1).  Therefore,  the  remaining  1

(2009)6 SCC 121

Page 4

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       4

amount comes to Rs.15,876/- per month. The High  

Court  applied  the  multiplier  of  11  and  re-

determined  the  loss  of  dependency  of  the  

appellants at Rs.20,95,632/- as the age of the  

deceased at the time of his death was 53 years.  

It further awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards  

conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss  

of  estate,  loss  of  love  and  affection,  

and transportation of the dead body. Thus, the  

total compensation amount was determined by the  

High Court at Rs.21,40,632/-. The High Court has  

affirmed  the  apportionment  of  contributory  

negligence  as  determined  by  the  Tribunal  

and  accordingly,  deducted  25%  from  the  

above  compensation.  A  final  amount  of  

Rs.16,05,474/- was awarded to the appellants by  

the High Court as against Rs.15,97,974/- awarded  

by  the  Tribunal.  Thus,  the  High  Court  partly  

allowed the appeal by enhancing the compensation  

by a sum of Rs.7,500/-.

6.Aggrieved  by  the  above  impugned  judgment  and  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka,

Page 5

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       5

Circuit  Bench  at  Dharwad,  the  appellants  

preferred  an  appeal  before  this  Court  for  

setting aside the same and for enhancement of  

compensation  by  awarding  just  and  reasonable  

compensation.  

7. Mr. C.B. Gururaj, the learned counsel for the  

appellants contended that the judgment of this  

court  in Juju  Kuruvila  &  Ors.  v. Kunjujamma  

Mohan & Ors.2 is applicable to the facts of the  

present  case.  In  the  above  case,  Joy  

Kuruvila(the deceased) had a head-on collision  

with a bus approaching from the opposite side.  

Joy Kuruvila sustained serious injuries and died  

on the way to the hospital.  The Tribunal found  

that the accident occurred due to the rash and  

negligent  driving  of  the  bus  driver.  It  

apportioned the contributory negligence between  

the  driver  and  the  deceased  in  the  ratio  of  

75:25%. On the basis of the pleadings & evidence  

on record, in the above said case this Court has  

held thus on the negligence of the driver of the  

bus:- 2

(2013)9 SCC 166

Page 6

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       6

“20.5. The  mere  position  of  the  vehicles after accident, as shown in  a  scene  mahazar,  cannot  give  a  substantial proof as to the rash and  negligent driving on the part of one  or  the  other.  When  two  vehicles  coming  from  opposite  directions  collide, the position of the vehicles  and its direction, etc. depends on a  number of factors like the speed of  vehicles,  intensity  of  collision,  reason for collision, place at which  one vehicle hit the other, etc. From  the scene of the accident, one may  suggest  or  presume  the  manner  in  which the accident was caused, but in  the  absence  of  any  direct  or  corroborative evidence, no conclusion  can be drawn as to whether there was  negligence on the part of the driver.  In  absence  of  such  direct  or  corroborative  evidence,  the  Court  cannot  give  any  specific  finding  about negligence on the part of any  individual.

20.6. The post mortem report, Ext. A- 5 shows the condition of the deceased  at the time of death. The said report  reflects  that  the  deceased  had  already  taken  meal  and  his  stomach  was  half-full  and  contained  rice,  vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid  with  strong  smell  of  spirit.  The  aforesaid  evidence,  Ext.A-5  clearly  suggests that the deceased had taken  liquor but on the basis of the same,  no definite finding can be given that  the  deceased  was  driving  the  car  rashly and negligently at the time of  the  accident.  The  mere  suspicion  based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and  Ext.  A-5  post-mortem  report  cannot  take  the  place  of  evidence,  particularly,  when  the  direct

Page 7

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       7

evidence  like  PW3  (independent  eyewitness), Ext. B-1 (FI statement)  are on record”

Thus  in  our  view,  the  contributory  negligence  

apportioned by the Tribunal, which is affirmed  

by  the  High  Court  at  75%  on  the  respondent-

Corporation bus driver and 25% on the part of  

the  deceased  is  erroneous  not  only  with  

reference to the plea urged by the respondents  

before the Tribunal and the High Court but also  

keeping in view the legal principles laid down  

by  this  Court  on  this  aspect  in  the  above  

referred case.  

 8.The observations made by this Court in the case  

of Juju Kuruvila (supra) certainly apply to the  

fact situation on hand. Based on the evidence  

recorded  in  the  present  case,  we  are  of  the  

opinion that there is no contributory negligence  

on the part of the deceased but on the other  

hand the negligence is on the part of the driver  

of the respondent-Corporation bus.

9.After  thorough  consideration  of  the  facts  and  

legal evidence on record in the present case, we

Page 8

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       8

are of the view that the collision between the  

motor  vehicles  occurred  when  the  respondent-

Corporation bus was turning to its right side  

without showing the turn indicator to enter the  

bus depot. The driver of the offending vehicle  

of the respondent-Corporation bus was negligent  

by  not  giving  the  right  turn  indicator  and  

causing  the  accident.  The  driver  of  the  

respondent-Corporation  bus  should  have  been  

aware of the fact that he was driving the heavy  

passenger  motor  vehicle,  and  that  it  was  

necessary for him to take extra care & caution  

of the other vehicles on the road while taking  

the turn to enter the depot. Had the driver of  

the offending vehicle taken sufficient caution  

and  care,  slowed  down  and  allowed  reasonable  

provision for other vehicles on the left side of  

the road to pass smoothly, the accident could  

have been averted.  

10. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal  

and  the  High  Court  have  erred  in  the  

apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part  

of  the  deceased  and  75%  on  the  part  of  the

Page 9

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       9

driver of the respondent-Corporation bus without  

evidence  adduced  in  this  regard  by  the  

respondent.  But  on  the  other  hand,  legal  

evidence produced on record by the appellants in  

this  case  would  show  that  the  accident  was  

caused on account of the negligence on the part  

of the driver of the offending vehicle of the  

respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the erroneous  

finding  recorded  by  the  Tribunal  &  concurring  

with the same by the High Court on the question  

of  contributory  negligence  of  the  deceased  is  

liable  to  be  set  aside.  Accordingly,  we  set  

aside the same as it is not only erroneous but  

contrary to law laid down by this Court in the  

case of Juju Kurivila (Supra).

11. In our considered view, since the deceased  

at the time of his death was approximately 53  

years of age, therefore, as per law laid down by  

this Court in the Sarla Verma case (supra), 30%  

of  actual  salary  for  future  prospects  of  the  

deceased  cannot  be  taken  for  the  purpose  of  

awarding compensation under loss of dependency  

in favour of the appellants.

Page 10

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       10

 12.Further, with regard to gross annual income of  

the  deceased,  to  determine  the  loss  of  

dependency of the appellants, we refer to the  

case of  National Insurance Co. Ltd.  v. Indira  

Srivastava3,  wherein  this  Court  has  held  as  

under:-

“19.  The  amounts,  therefore,  which  were  required  to  be  paid  to  the  deceased  by  his  employer  by  way  of  perks,  should  be  included  for  computation of his monthly income as  that  would  have  been  added  to  his  monthly income by way of contribution  to  the  family  as  contradistinguished  to  the  ones  which  were  for  his  benefit.  We  may,  however,  hasten  to  add  that  from  the  said  amount  of  income,  the  statutory  amount  of  tax  payable thereupon must be deducted.  

20. The term 'income' in P. Ramanatha  Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Ed.)  has been defined as under : "The value  of any benefit or perquisite whether  convertible  into  money  or  not,  obtained from a company either by a  director  or  a  person  who  has  substantial  interest  in  the  company,  and any sum paid by such company in  respect of any obligation, which but  for  such  payment  would  have  been  payable  by  the  director  or  other  person aforesaid, occurring or arising  to a person within the State from any  

3  (2008) 2 SCC 763

Page 11

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       11

profession,  trade  or  calling  other  than agriculture."

It has also been stated :

'INCOME'  signifies  'what  comes  in'  (per Selborne, C., Jones v. Ogle, 42  LJ Ch.336). 'It is as large a word as  can  be  used'  to  denote  a  person's  receipts  '(per  Jessel,  M.R.  Re  Huggins, 51 LJ Ch.938.) income is not  confined  to  receipts  from  business  only  and  means  periodical  receipts  from  one's  work,  lands,  investments,  etc. AIR 1921 Mad 427 (SB). Ref. 124  IC 511 : 1930 MWN 29 : 31 MLW 438 AIR  1930 Mad 626 : 58 MLJ 337."

13. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of  

the  deceased  for  the  month  of  April,  2011  

determined  the  salary  of  the  deceased  at  

Rs.21,168/-  per  month  after  deducting  towards  

P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore,  

the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as  

the salary of the deceased. The High Court in  

its  impugned  judgment  and  order  affirmed  the  

same. We are of the view, that on the facts and  

circumstances of this case, the net salary of  

the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High  

Court for determination of loss of dependency is

Page 12

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       12

erroneous as it is not in accordance with the  

principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  this  

regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set  

aside as it has to be properly determined by  

taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear  

that the gross income of the deceased at the  

time of his death as per his salary slip was  

Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the  

view  that  a  just  and  reasonable  compensation  

under the head of loss of dependency has not  

been determined by the courts below. Thus, the  

impugned judgment and order of the High Court is  

vitiated  both  on  account  of  erroneous  finding  

and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the  

deceased  at  the  time  of  his  death  was  

Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the  

Tribunal  have  taken  the  net  salary  at  

Rs.21,168/- per month, thereby the Courts below  

have erred in making deductions from the gross  

salary of the deceased towards P.T. of Rs.200/-  

and  other  statutory  deductions  and  therefore,  

arriving  at  Rs.21,168/-  per  month  as  the  net  

salary  of  the  deceased  is  erroneous  in  law.

Page 13

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       13

Therefore,  we  are  of  the  view  that  both  the  

Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not  

following the rules laid down by this Court in  

Indira Srivastava’s (supra) in not taking gross  

income of the deceased to determine the loss of  

dependency.

14. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at  

the  time  of  his  death  as  per  salary  slip  

produced on record was Rs.26,000/- per month and  

after  deducting  10%  towards  income  tax,  net  

income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month. Thus, the  

annual  income  of  the  deceased  would  be  

Rs.2,80,800/-.  Deducting  1/4th of  this  amount  

towards  his  personal  expenses  by  applying  the  

principle as laid down by this Court in  Sarla  

Verma case (supra), the balance amount comes to  

Rs.2,10,600/-[(2,80,800/- – Rs.70,200/- (1/4th of  

Rs.2,80,800/-)].  Therefore,  the  loss  of  

dependency  of  the  appellants  by  applying  the  

appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the  

rules laid down by this Court in the Sarla Verma  

comes to Rs.23,16,600/- (Rs.2,10,600/- X 11).

Page 14

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       14

15. Further,  the  High  Court  has  erred  in  not  

following the rules as laid down by this Court  

in  awarding  compensation  under  other  

conventional  heads  as  mentioned  hereunder.  We  

are of the view that the appellants are entitled  

to  Rs.1,00,000/-  for  loss  of  consortium,  

Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection as  

per the rule laid down by this Court in Rajesh &  

Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.4, Rs.10,000/- for  

funeral expenses as per the rules laid down by  

this  Court  in  Amrit  Bhanu  Shali  &  Ors.  v.  

National  Insurance  Co.  Ltd.  &  Ors.5 and  

Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of estate.  

16.  The computation made by both the Tribunal  

and the High Court after deducting the amount  

out of the compensation under the head of loss  

of  dependency  towards  contributory  negligence  

and not taking gross income of the deceased as  

laid down by this Court in  Indira Srivastava’s  

4   (2013) 9 SCC 54

5  (2012) 11 SCC 738

Page 15

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       15

case (supra) has rendered the determination of  

the  compensation  under  the  head  of  loss  of  

dependency  bad  in  law.  Further,  the  

quantification  of  compensation  from  all  other  

heads as indicated in the preceding paragraph by  

us as both the Tribunal and the High Court have  

erred in not following rule laid down by this  

Court  on  this  aspect  in  the  catena  of  cases  

referred to supra. Therefore, we set aside the  

same  and  award  the  compensation  as  per  the  

calculations made in the penultimate paragraph  

of this judgment.

17. As regards to awarding of interest on the  

compensation,  the  courts  below  have  erred  in  

awarding  only  6%  interest  p.a.  on  the  

compensation  awarded  instead  of  9%  p.a.  by  

applying the decision of this Court in Municipal  

Corporation of Delhi  v. Association of Victims  

of Uphaar Tragedy6.  Therefore, we have to award  the  interest  @9%  p.a.  on  the  compensation  

determined in this appeal. 6

(2011) 14 SCC 481

Page 16

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       16

18.  In  the  result,  the  appellants  shall  be  

entitled  to  compensation  under  the  following  

heads: Loss of Life               Rs.23,16,600/- Funeral Expenses         Rs.   10,000/- Loss of love and affection       Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of estate                   Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of consortium               Rs. 1,00,000/-

Total :                          Rs.26,26,600/-

Thus,  the  total  compensation  payable  to  the  

appellants  by  the  respondent-Transport  

Corporation will be Rs.26,26,600/- with interest  

@ 9% from the date of filing of the application  

till the date of payment.  

19.  In view of the reasons stated as above, we  

allow this appeal in the above said terms. The  

compensation  awarded  shall  be  apportioned  

amongst  the  appellants  in  terms  of  the  award  

passed by the Tribunal. The respondent-Transport  

Corporation  shall  either  pay  the  amount  of  

compensation  by  way  of  demand  draft/drafts  in

Page 17

C.A .No. 7705 of 2014                                                       17

favour  of  the  appellants  or  deposit  the  same  

with  interest  as  awarded,  before  the  Motor  

Accidents  Claims  Tribunal  after  deducting  the  

amount already paid to the appellants within six  

weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of  

this judgment. No costs.

                 ……………………………………………………………………J.                       [DIPAK MISRA]

  ……………………………………………………………………J.                       [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

 New Delhi,   August 28, 2014.