[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kamlesh vs Zile Singh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5237 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.7888/2023)
KAMLESH & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ZILE SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Time taken for Time taken for Time taken for
disposal of the claim disposal of the disposal of the
petition by MACT appeal by the High appeal in this Court
Court
11 months 30 days 9 years 9 months 2 years 1 month
Leave granted.
2 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
Signature Not Verified
21st May 2019, passed in FAO No.5280 of 2009 by the High Court
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.04.19
14:31:01 IST
Reason:
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which, in turn, was preferred
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 1 of 9
against the order dated 10th April 2009 in MACT Case No.58 of
2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon.
3 The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27 th
November 2007, the deceased, namely, Rajiv Mohan, aged 21
years, was travelling on his scooter from New Delhi to his village
Ismailpur. At village Markpur near Budha Mata, the offending
vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55F-5744, driven by
Respondent No.1 dashed into the scooter of the deceased in a rash
and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the deceased
died on the spot. In connection with the same, FIR No.196 dated
27th November 2007, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, was registered against the driver (Respondent
No.1) of the offending vehicle at Farrukh Nagar Police Station.
4 An application seeking compensation was filed before the
Tribunal by the claimant-appellants (the legal representatives of
the deceased), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 18% per annum, stating therein that the deceased was
earning Rs.8,000/- and was employed with Royal Facilities
Management Services, Maharani Bagh Chowk, New Delhi.
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 2 of 9
5. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,12,400/- to the
claimant-appellants vide award dated 10th April 2009 alongwith
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed by the
Tribunal as Rs.3,600/- per month, on the basis of the prevailing
minimum wages, since the claimant-appellants were not able to
produce any evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased. The
respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claimant-appellants.
6. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the
High Court. The claimants challenged the said Award on the
ground that the monthly income of Rs.3,600/-, assessed by the
Tribunal on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled labourer
prevalent in the State at the time of accident, was on the lower
side.
7. The High Court vide the impugned judgment, allowed the
appeal and enhanced the compensation amount of Rs.8,91,840/-
along with interest @ 6% per annum. The Court in order to award
just and equitable compensation enhanced the monthly income of
the deceased to Rs.3,800/-.
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 3 of 9
8. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us.
The significant points of the challenge taken are that the Courts
below have erred in computing the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.3,800/- in the absence of any documentary
evidence, and the rate of interest was wrongly reduced from 9% to
6% per annum.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the patties.
10. It is borne from the records that the statement of PW-5, i.e.,
the employer of the deceased, clearly shows that the deceased was
working in their office and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,800/,
as per the appointment letter (Ex.P3) produced therein.
11. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Court
below in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. This Court
in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav1, this Court stated that :
2. … In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot
be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In
absence of documentary evidence on record some amount
of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time
the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased
should not be totally detached from reality. Merely
because the claimants were unable to produce
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of
Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of1 (2022) 1 SCC 198
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 4 of 9
minimum wage while computing the income. There is no
reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the
deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning
around Rs 15,000 per month.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. In the attending facts and circumstances, we are inclined to
place reliance on the appointment letter, Ex.P3, which finds further
strength through the testimony of PW-5 and therefore, enhance the
monthly income of the deceased to Rs.5,800/-, with a view to
award fair and just compensation.
13. As a result of discussion above, the compensation payable to
the claimant-appellant in accordance with law is as follows:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with:
Monthly Income Rs.5,800/-
Yearly Income Rs.69,600/-
Future Prospects 69,600 + 27,840 National Insurance Co.
(40%) (Age being = Rs.97,440/- Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
21) (2017) 16 SCC 680
Deduction (1/4) 97,440 – 24,360 Para Nos.37, 39, 41, 42
= Rs.73,080/- and 59.4
Multiplier (18) 73,080 X 18
= Rs.13,15,440/-
Loss of Income of Rs. 13,15,440/-
the Deceased
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- National Insurance Co.
Loss of Funeral Rs.18,150/- Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
Expenses (2017) 16 SCC 680
Para 59.8
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 5 of 9
Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 4 National Insurance Co.
= Rs.1,93,600/- Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Para 59.8
United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,
(2021) 11 SCC 780
Para 37.12
Rajwati alias Rajjo and
Ors v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd.
& Ors.
2022 SCC Online SC
1699
Para 34
Total Rs.15,50,340/-
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
MACT High Court This Court
Rs.3,12,400/- Rs.8,91,840/- Rs.15,50,340/-
14.The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
impugned Award dated 10th April 2009 passed in MACT Case
No.58 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gurgaon, as modified by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh, vide the impugned order dated 21st May 2019,
passed in FAO No.5280 of 2009 stands modified accordingly,CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 6 of 9
along with the interest @ 6% per annum, on the enhanced
amount, from the date of filing claim petition till the date of
disbursement.
15.The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the
claimant-appellants. The particulars of the bank account are to
be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the
appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount
be remitted positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………….……J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi;
25th March, 2025.
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 7 of 9
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.16 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
7888/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
21-05-2019 in FAO No. 5280/2009 passed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]
KAMLESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ZILE SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 44930/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 44932/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.AND IA No. 44931/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 25-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRAFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ravin Dubey, Adv.
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 8 of 9
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of signed order.
3. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
CA @ SLP(C)No.7888/2023 Page 9 of 9
[ad_2]
Source link