IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6291 of 2019
Decided On: 14.08.2019
Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Author: Indu Malhotra, J.
Citation: 2019 (4) TAC 3, MANU/SC/1096/2019.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/04/supreme-court-sum-of-rs-40000-is-to-be.html
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021
Decided On: 05.01.2021
Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana
Surya Kant, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0004/2021.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2512 OF 2024
ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Vs GIRISH PANDEY & ANR.
Dated: FEBRUARY 16, 2024.
In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Tribunal went wrong in applying the split multiplier method. This Court notices that the issue was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jayasree N. (supra) and Usha Kumari (supra), where again the Honourable Supreme Court has frowned upon the split multiplier method and reiterated the multiplier method. This Court, therefore finds that instead of applying the multiplier of '9' and '5' to the pre-retirement and post-retirement respectively, a standard multiplier of '14' has to be applied. It is so held. {Para 12}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA Nos. 688 of 2013 and 216 of 2015
Decided On: 27.07.2023
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Khader and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C. Jayachandran, J.
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5686,MANU/KE/1831/2023.
Print PageFrom a perusal of the aforesaid two provisions, it is established that the word person has been used and a claim petition can be filed on account of death or injury of any person or damage of the property. However, in the instant case, the claim petition is found to have been filed on account of death of dog, which does not fall either under the definition of "person" or "property". In this view of the matter, the claim petition filed by the claimant was not at all maintainable under Sec. 140 and 166 of MV Act. {Para 7}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1282 of 2009
Decided On: 29.04.2015
Kundan Singh Vs. Gokul and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.C. Sharma, J.
Citation: 2016 ACJ 665 (Raj) ,MANU/RH/2267/2015.
Print PageIf the relevant chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is perused, the object seems to be to rehabilitate the victims of the motor accidents and/or their legal representatives. A claim petition under the said Act is in that sense not an adversarial litigation like a litigation where the rival parties fight in respect of a right over a property. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, MANU/SC/1018/2010 : 2011(2) Mh. L.J. (SC) 569 : 2011(1) SCC 343. In paragraph No. 11 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal under the said Act does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to hold an enquiry into the claim for determining the just compensation. The Apex Court has held that the Tribunal has an active role to play in ascertaining the true and correct position so that just compensation can be awarded. A judicial notice will have to be taken that in our country generally we have very bad road conditions. The street lighting is poor. There are no road dividers on major roads. In mofussil areas, the means of transport are limited. We do not have any kind of traffic discipline. The cumulative effect of all these factors is that there are large number of road accidents. Therefore, in a sense, the victims of motor accidents are the victims of the system and therefore, it is the duty of the Advocates representing the parties before the Tribunal to assist the Court in the mission of finding the truth and arriving at just compensation. If the claims are inflated or fabricated, the duty of the Advocates is to assist the Court to arrive at the truth. In genuine claims, the approach of insurers and their Advocates has to be fair and humane. In the facts of the present case, the respondent No. 3 should have adopted a fair approach and could have always avoided inhuman approach which was reflected from the questions put in the cross-examination of the appellant and Dr. Joshi. Less said the better about the written arguments. {Para 19}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
F.A. No. 717 of 1999
Decided On: 08.08.2011
Dattatraya Laxman Shinde Vs. Nana Raghunath Hire and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
1) The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 was published in the Gazette of India on 09.08.2019. Reference to section 1 of the Amendment Act shows that its sub section 2 provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act, shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision. Vide the notification No.SO 859(E) dated 25.02.2022 Section 53 of Motor Vehicles Amendment Act came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which received accent on 9th August 2019.
2) Chapter X which dealt with no fault liability containing Sections 140 to 144 has been deleted, so also, section 163-A which made special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis alongwith schedule II as amended by notification dated 22.05.2018 is deleted. In its place, a new Section 164 under chapter XI is introduced on no fault liability and the amount received under the same is full and final.
Print PageWe cannot approve the said view of the High Court, for, Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in this case was not a debt or security to which the deceased was entitled. This was a compensation sanctioned on amount of the death of the deceased and is, therefore, not an asset belonging to the deceased but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim on their own account. The civil court will only decide as to who are the legal representatives and in what shares they are entitled to as per the Personal Law applicable to them. The Parties will move appropriate application before the court concerned for expediting the procedure regarding disbursement of the amount. With these observations we set aside the impugned order. {Para 3}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 402-03 of 2000.
Decided On: 17.01.2000
Rukhsana and Ors. Vs. Nazrunnisa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.
Author: K.T. Thomas, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/2586/2000,2000 (9) SCC 240.
Print PageThe Tribunal assumed that the extent of negligence of the appellant and the first respondent is fifty:fifty because it was a case of composite negligence. The Tribunal, we find, fell into a common error committed by several Tribunals, in proceeding on the assumption that composite negligence and contributory negligence are the same. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned. {Para 5}
6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2008.
Decided On: 01.02.2008
T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. and R.V. Raveendran, J.
Author:K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.
Citation: 2008 ACJ 1165 SC,MANU/SC/7181/2008.
Print PageThis Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors. MANU/SC/1012/2018 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 has held that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is to be paid to each of the parents towards loss of consortium on the death of a child. Therefore, the Appellants are entitled to be awarded Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6291 of 2019
Decided On: 14.08.2019
Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Author: Indu Malhotra, J.
Citation: 2019 (4) TAC 3, MANU/SC/1096/2019.
Print PageThe issue to be examined herein is whether in the claims cases before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, the driver of a vehicle who has been accused of negligence is a necessary party to the proceedings or whether the owner alone can be impleaded.
Here, one must bifurcate the terms 'party' and 'necessary party'. 'Party' has been correctly defined by the High Court in the impugned judgment in terms of involvement in the proceedings regardless of formal impleadment. However, a necessary party has been defined in the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary as follows:
In pleading and practice, those persons who must be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete relief cannot be given to those already parties without their joinder. Fed. R. civil P. 19 (a)....
First and foremost, as has been stated in the body of the judgment, natural justice would mandate involvement of a driver, as an adverse finding on negligence cannot and should not be made against him without giving him the opportunity to at least make a representation as a witness.
More importantly, however, one must look at the kind of evidence which must be led in such cases. Appellants have, as noticed hereinbefore, relied on Patel Roadways (supra) to try and prove that the driver need not be a party. Firstly, this case only relates to formally impleading the driver as a party. However, the fact that joint tortfeasors have been mentioned in the judgment is relevant.
Joint tortfeasors, as per the 10th edition of Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, have been described as under:
Wrongdoers are deemed to be joint tortfeasors, within the meaning of the rule, where the cause of action against each of them in the same, namely that the same evidence would support an action against them, individually- Accordingly, they will be jointly liable for a tort which they both commit or for which they are responsible because the law imputes the commission of the same wrongful act to two or more persons at the same time. This occurs in cases of (a) agency; (b) vicarious liability; and (c) where a tort is committed in the course of a joint act, whilst pursuing a common purpose agreed between them.
Hence, employer and employee, the former being vicariously liable while the latter being primarily liable are joint tortfeasors and are therefore jointly and severally liable. However, by virtue of the fact that the cause of action is the same and that the same evidence would support an action against either, it follows that this evidence must necessarily include an examination of the driver who is primarily liable. To make a finding on negligence without involving the driver as at least a witness would vitiate the proceedings not only on the basis of the fact that the driver has not been given an opportunity to make a representation, but also because the evidence to make a finding regarding negligence would necessarily be inadequate.
24. On this basis, a driver should be made a 'party' to the proceedings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2008
Decided On: 29.04.2008
Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Author: S.B. Sinha, J.
Citation: 2008 INSC 556,MANU/SC/2484/2008,AIR 2008 SC 2545.
Print PageFurther, the Court in New India Assurance opined that though a court may be required to account for the depletion in the net income accruing from the assets of the deceased on account of payments for engaging managers, evidence must be adduced to compute the depletion. The Court held:
In the normal course the claimants are expected to adduce evidence as to what would be the quantum of depletion in the income from the abovementioned asset on account of the abovementioned factors.
In the present case, no evidence was adduced by the Appellants at any stage of the proceedings to assist in the computation of the depletion in the net income which accrues to the deceased. The judgment of this Court in New India Assurance does not help the case of the Appellants. {Para 11}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 9196-97 of 2019.
Decided On: 09.12.2019
Malarvizhi and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Citation: (2020) 4 SCC 228, MANU/SC/1700/2019.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
It was then contended by Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj that this Court must add to the annual income of the deceased, depreciation costs on capital assets to the amounts of Rs. 21,642, 74,685 and 7,701 as reflected in the tax return for the assessment year 1997-1998. We are unable to accede to this contention. Depreciation is the deduction allowed for the decline in the real value of tangible or intangible assets over its useful life. Its value varies over time and cannot amount to tangible income for the purposes of computing annual income in a claim before the MACT. (Para 12)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 9196-97 of 2019.
Decided On: 09.12.2019
Malarvizhi and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Citation: (2020) 4 SCC 228, MANU/SC/1700/2019.
Print PageIn view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. {Para 12}
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022
Decided On: 13.10.2022
Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Author: J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1320/2022,(2023) 1 SCC 204.
Print PageThough, there is no evidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the payment of Rs. 11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That clearly establishes the earning capacity of the deceased. It is also the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of monthly instalment of Rs. 11,550/- towards loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income at Rs. 25,000/- per month. {Para 8}
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs. 25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court.
In the Supreme Court of India
(Before Surya Kant and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
Gurpreet Kaur and Others Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-82 of 2022
Decided on September 27, 2022
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778.
Print PageThis Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh MANU/SC/0021/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] has noticed the defences available to the insurance company Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.
{Para 12}
17. This issue has been answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh MANU/SC/0021/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus: (SCC p. 340)
107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged Under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage.
10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4919 of 2022
Decided On: 26.07.2022
Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.
Author: Hemant Gupta, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1303/2022,2022 SCCONLINE SC 2119.
Print PageFUTURE PROSPECTS
17. The High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospect in the compensation granted. In its reasoning, the High Court has stated that the Income tax returns relied upon by the Appellant show that despite the injury the Appellant's income had subsequently increased and hence it cannot be said that there is a loss of future earnings.
18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that "just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place.
19. The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.06.2009. The acknowledgement of both the Income Tax Returns produced by the Appellant show that Tax Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Both the Income Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from before the accident took place, and hence the High Court's finding that the income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is incorrect.
20. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the Appellant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable the Appellant from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors.
21. In light of National Insurance Co. Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, the applicable 40% addition of future prospects will be given as compensation to the Appellant herein.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022.
Decided On: 09.12.2022
Mohd. Sabeer Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Author: Krishna Murari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1597/2022, 2022 SCCONLINE 1701.
Print Page(9) Marriage Prospects
99. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was young, and due to the physical disability, his marriage prospects are now almost nil. The Tribunal awarded to Rs. 20,000/- under this head. The High Court upheld the amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
100. In Sanjay Kumar (supra), this Court observed as under:
14... On the point of loss of marriage prospects, we feel that it is a major loss, keeping in mind the young age of the Appellant and the High Court has gravely erred in not awarding adequate compensation separately under this head and instead clubbed it under "loss of future enjoyment of life" and "pain and suffering". We thereby award Rs. 75,000 towards loss of marriage prospects...
101. In Ibrahim v. Raju and Ors., MANU/SC/1276/2011 : (2011) 10 SCC 634, this Court held:
19. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the prospects of the Appellant's marriage have considerably reduced. Rather, they are extremely bleak. In any case, on account of the fracture of pelvis, he will not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life. Therefore, the award of Rs. 50,000 under this head must be treated as wholly inadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs should be awarded to the Appellant for loss of marriage prospects and enjoyment of life.
102. In Master Ayush (supra), this Court observed that the victim (5-year-old, paraplegic) was entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
14.... The Appellant has not only lost his childhood but also adult life. Therefore, loss of marriage prospects would also be required to be awarded...
103. In view of the aforesaid, we award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022
Decided On: 16.11.2022
Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1493/2022.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print PageThe law with respect to the grant of compensation in injury cases is well-settled. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages also known as special damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages, generally include the expenses incurred by the claimants on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/attending, loss of income, loss of earning capacity and other material loss, which may require any special treatment or aid to the insured for the rest of his life. The general damages or the non-pecuniary loss include the compensation for mental or physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfiguration, loss of marriage prospects, loss of expected or earning of life, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life, etc. {Para 9}
93. Pain and suffering would be categorized as a non-pecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. This Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra), while discussing this aspect held that:
10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the Appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the Appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the Appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
17. .....When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration.......
94. This Court in the case of Mahadeva Shetty (supra), while discussing the factors to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation for pain and suffering held that:
18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.
(10) Loss of Amenities
105. This Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), observed:
6. The principle consistently followed by this Court in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1281/2011 : (2011) 10 SCC 683 .....]
106. In R.D. Hattangadi (supra) it has been held:
12. In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.
17. ......When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life.....
107. This Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) held:
5. ....A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.....
109. This Court in Govind Yadav (supra) held:
18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0777/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar MANU/SC/1018/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.
110. Vijaykumar Babulal Modi (supra), the High Court of Gujarat observed as under:
It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs. 3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head 'loss of amenities'. We are of the opinion that this head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance. Then, there is the virtual impossibility of marriage as well as a complete loss of the ability to have sex and to have and nurture children.
113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life Under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav (supra)]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 8510 of 2022
Decided On: 16.11.2022
Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1493/2022.
Print Page16. In the case of Shila Datta (Supra), this Court held as under:
10. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Learned Tribunal constituted Under Section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. 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. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Learned Tribunals and determination of compensation by Learned Tribunals:
(ii) The Rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the Learned Tribunal.
(vi) The Learned Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide Section 169 of the Act).
17. Reference in this connection may also be made to the observations made by this Court in the case of Sunita and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. MANU/SC/0204/2019 : (2020) 13 SCC 486, wherein it was observed as under:
It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.
18. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata and Ors. v. Satbir and Ors. MANU/SC/0165/2011 : (2011) 3 SCC 646, this Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.
19. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict Rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".
20. In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay slip (Exhibit 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements of the deceased's wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased's income at Rs. 11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to, Rs. 11,225/- x 12 = Rs. 1,34,700/-.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022
Decided On: 09.12.2022
Rajwati and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Author: Krishna Murari, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1595/2022,2022SCCONLINE SC 1699.
Print Page26. Considering all the above factors, with the intention to safeguard the interest of the victims/claimants and to ensure that the victims/claimants get full compensation, less the legal costs, certain directions need be issued to the Tribunals to scrupulously follow. The following directions are issued for the benefit of the victims/claimants.
"PROCEDURE BEFORE PASSING AWARD
(i) The Claims Tribunals shall without exception, at the time of commencement of trial and evidence on the side of claimants, obtain and ensure that the bank account details of all the claimants as follows:
The first page of the bank pass-book, which will compulsorily contain the photograph of the claimant(s)/victim(s), duly attested by the Bank concerned, should be made available. Wherever the claimant(s)/victim(s) are impleaded as respondents, before the claims tribunal or the Court, their account details, as above, will have to be furnished.
(ii) In case after disclosure of the bank account details before the Claims Tribunal in terms of Clause (i), a new person is added in the account for any reason whatsoever, it is incumbent on the part of the claimant/victim to disclose the same to the Claims Tribunal, indicating the relationship of the newly added person to the claimant/victim and the purpose.
(iii) The Claims Tribunals shall also obtain and ensure the marking of Pan Card of all the claimants, wherever available.
(iv) If the claimant/victim does not have a Pan Card, the Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to advise the claimant/victim about the importance of having such a card, namely, to avoid higher Tax Deduction at Source, for their own benefit, before conclusion of trial. For this purpose, the District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Authorities can facilitate and provide assistance.
(v) The Claims Tribunals may verify and confirm if the claimant/victim has an Aadhaar card, and if there is one, he/she may be called upon to mark a self attested copy of the Aadhaar Card.
(vi) In case of minor claimants, their bank account details should be obtained and marked. The name of the guardian has to be specified.
(vii) The Claims Tribunals shall ensure compliance of clause (i) above, before conclusion of trial.
PROCEDURE AFTER PASSING AWARD
(viii) The Claims Tribunals shall, as a matter of rule, direct the insurance companies or transport corporations or such other entities held liable to pay the compensation, to deposit the award sum to the credit of the bank account of the Claims Tribunal directly by NEFT or RTGS mode. The Registry will issue appropriate directions in this regard enabling the respective Claims Tribunal or the District Court concerned to open separate account, which will bear a suffix " MACT" to identify that the account is in relation to motor accident claims.
(ix) The Insurance Companies and Transport Corporations shall instruct their banks to ensure deposit of the award sums by way of Direct Bank Transfer to the specified bank account of the Claims Tribunal containing the following information in the prescribed format, by way of compliance of the award.
(x) In turn, the bank of the Claims Tribunal shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Registry of the Claims Tribunal to enable the said Registry to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits were made.
(xi) On such deposits being made, the insurance companies and transport corporations shall submit a letter to the Registry of the Claims Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit was made to the bank account of the Claims Tribunal, to enable the Claims Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made, which is a fundamental need for a smooth implementation of this well intentioned scheme. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION
From:
.... Bank
....
To:
.... Court
....
We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of.... (insurance company/transport corporation):--
(xii) The Insurance Companies, Transport Corporations and such other entities making such deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in Clause (ix) to the Claims Tribunal concerned and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
(xiii) Insofar as tax deduction at source is concerned, Form 16-A of the IT Act should be provided to the claimant/victim on whose behalf the deduction has been made so as to enable him/her to seek refund of tax deducted.
(xiv) The Claims Tribunals shall ensure that the benefit of details of such bank account of the Claims Tribunal concerned are identified in the award itself, for compliance by those required to satisfy the award.
(xv) The Claims Tribunals shall ensure that as and when an order is passed for disbursal of compensation amount, it will ensure that such disbursal of compensation shall be made directly to the credit of the bank account of the claimant/victim, as the case may by NEFT or RTGS. The bank account details of the claimant/victim(s) shall be stated in the award/order of the Claims Tribunal.
(xvi) The Claims Tribunals shall, in case of minor claimants, retain the amounts in court deposit until they attain majority. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal shall ensure deposit of their shares by Direct Bank/Benefit Transfers to the accounts of the parties, who were minors. Wherever the Claims Tribunal feels it appropriate to direct withdrawal of interest for the benefit of the minor, interest shall be paid by direct transfer to the account of the minor.
(xvii) The Claims Tribunals shall also ensure that in case the claimant or claimants die pending proceedings and legal representatives are brought on record, the same procedure as above in respect of claimants shall be strictly adhered to in respect of impleaded legal representatives also.
(xviii) The Claims Tribunals shall also ensure that in case of compromise being recorded in Lok Adalat proceedings, at the time of such compromise, the details of bank accounts, Pan Card (if available) of the claimant or claimants and/or legal representatives shall also be obtained and disbursal of the amount compromised shall also be only by way of NEFT/RTGS. In cases where the claimants or victims have Adhaar Cards, a self attested copy of the same may also be obtained.
(xix) The High Court Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice so that appropriate circular can be issued to all the District Judges and the Claims Tribunals to publish the above interdict, as it needs to be widely publicized and displayed in the notice board and also by way of intimation to insurance companies, transport corporations and other departments that they are required to follow these instructions.
(xx) The District Judges concerned shall ensure strict compliance of the above directions.
(xxi) The Claims Tribunals are hereby instructed to abide by the above direction without any let or hindrance, scrupulously and in case they find any procedural difficulty while implementing the same, it can be brought to the attention of this Court through the Registry.
(xxii) We hereby hold that these directions shall come into force for strict implementation and compliance on and from 1.8.2016 so as to enable the Claims Tribunal concerned to take suitable steps and provide the logistics for complying with the above directions.
(xxiii) A flow chart depicting the mode in which the transactions, namely deposit and payment of compensation, are to be made is annexed to this judgment."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 428 of 2016
Decided On: 11.03.2016
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Sudhakar and S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.
Authored By : S. Vaidyanathan, R. Sudhakar, S. Vaidyanathan
Citation: MANU/TN/0606/2016,2016-2 L W 561 Madras.
Print Page