Full Judgment Text
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.662-664 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO(s). 16739-16741 OF 2012)
SYED SADIQ ETC. …APPELLANTS
Vs.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INS. CO. … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants
questioning the correctness of the common judgment
JUDGMENT
and final order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1131
of 2011 [MV], C/W M.F.A. Nos. 1132 and 1133 of 2011
[MV], urging various facts and legal contentions in
justification of their claim.
3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder
to appreciate the case of the appellants and also
Page 1
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 2
to find out whether the appellants are entitled for
the relief as prayed in these appeals.
On 14.8.2008, all the three appellants/
claimants in the appeals herein were proceeding on
the left side of the road by pushing the motorcycle
bearing Registration no. KA-16-2404 since it was
punctured. When the appellants/ claimants came near
the Coper Petrol Bunk, opposite to Jai Hind Hotel,
a tractor bearing no KA-16/T-8219-8220 came from
the opposite direction on its right side in rash
and negligent manner and dashed into the motor
cycle and the appellants/claimants. This resulted
in all the appellants/claimants sustaining grievous
JUDGMENT
injuries.
4. They filed MV Case Nos. 149, 147 and 148 of
2010 respectively before the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, Chitradurga (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
The Tribunal awarded different awards in the three
different appeals which had been heard together by
Page 2
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 3
the High Court of Karnataka. Since the injuries
suffered by the three appellants are different, we
are inclined to decide upon the appeals
individually. As far as injuries sustained by the
appellants in the road accident are concerned,
there is no dispute that the accident occurred
on 14.02.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving
of the tractor-trailer bearing registration
No. KA-16/T-8219-8220 by its driver. The appeals
therefore, are confined to determining whether the
quantum of compensation which was enhanced by the
High Court from that of the Tribunal is just and
proper or whether it requires further enhancement
JUDGMENT
in the interest of justice. We take up the appeals
one at a time.
Civil Appeal @ MFA 1131/2011 (MVC No. 149/ 2010)
5. It is evident from the material and legal
evidence produced on record that the appellant/
claimant in this appeal had sustained injuries to
lower end of right femur and his right leg was
Page 3
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 4
amputated. Further, he had sustained injury over
his left upper arm. The injuries sustained by him
and the treatment taken by him are evident from the
wound certificate Ex. P-6, discharge cards Ex.P-
7&8, disability certificate Ex. P-12, X-ray films
Ex.P-218 and was further supported by oral evidence
of the appellant/claimant and the doctor examined
as PW-1 and PW-4 respectively. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh had
stated in his evidence that the appellant/claimant
had suffered disability of 24% to upper limb and
85% to lower limb. The Tribunal, however, had
considered the disability of the appellant/claimant
caused to whole body at 30%. The High Court
JUDGMENT
however, taking into consideration the amputation
of the right leg of the appellant/claimant,
determined the disability at 65% without assigning
any proper reason for coming to this conclusion.
Therefore, we intend to assign our reasons to hold
that the High Court has erred in concluding the
disability at 65%.
Page 4
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 5
6. This Court in the case of Mohan Soni v. Ram
1
Avtar Tomar & Ors. , has elaborately discussed upon
the factors which determine the loss of income of
the claimant more objectively. The relevant
paragraph reads as under:
“11. In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar
v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343,
this Court considered in great detail the
correlation between the physical disability
suffered in an accident and the loss of
earning capacity resulting from it. In
paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in
Raj Kumar, this Court made the following
observations:
10. Where the claimant suffers a
permanent disability as a result of
injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss
of future earnings would depend upon
the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on his earning
capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of
permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss
of earning capacity. In most of the
cases, the percentage of economic
loss, that is, the percentage of loss
of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of
JUDGMENT
1
(2012) 2 SCC 267
Page 5
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 6
permanent disability. Some Tribunals
wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in
a corresponding loss of earning
capacity, and consequently, if the
evidence produced show 45% as the
permanent disability, will hold that
there is 45% loss of future earning
capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of
loss of earning capacity to the
extent (percentage) of
permanent disability will result in
award of either too low or too high a
compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by
the Tribunal is the effect of the
permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning
capacity in terms of a percentage of
the income, it has to be quantified
in terms of money, to arrive at the
future loss of earnings (by applying
the standard multiplier method used
to determine loss of dependency). We
may however note that in some cases,
on appreciation of evidence and
assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of
earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability is approximately
the same as the percentage of
permanent disability in which case,
of course, the Tribunal will adopt
the said percentage for determination
of compensation. (See for example,
the decisions of this Court in Arvind
JUDGMENT
Page 6
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 7
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341).
13. Ascertainment of the effect of
the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of
the permanent disability and what he
could not do as a result of the
permanent disability (this is also
relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities
of life). The second step is to
ascertain his avocation, profession
and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third
step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant
could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, which he
was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his
previous activities and functions,
but could carry on some other or
lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to
earn or can continue to earn his
livelihood.”
JUDGMENT
Page 7
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 8
7. Further, the appellant claims that he was
working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a
vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the
extent that he sells vegetables at one place.
However, the occupation of vegetable vending is not
confined to selling vegetables from a particular
location. It rather involves procuring vegetables
from the whole-sale market or the farmers and then
selling it off in the retail market. This often
involves selling vegetables in the cart which
requires 100% mobility. But even by conservative
approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending
by the appellant/claimant involved selling
JUDGMENT
vegetables from one place, the claimant would
require assistance with his mobility in bringing
vegetables to the market place which otherwise
would be extremely difficult for him with an
amputated leg. We are required to be sensitive
while dealing with manual labour cases where loss
of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood.
Page 8
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 9
Yet, considering that the appellant/claimant is
still capable to fend for his livelihood once he is
brought in the market place, we determine the
disability at 85% to determine the loss of income.
8. The appellant/claimant in his appeal further
claimed that he had been earning
10,000/- p.m. by
doing vegetable vending work. The High Court
however, considered the loss of income at
3500/-
p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce
any document to establish his loss of income. It is
difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a
labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his
own business is expected to produce documents to
JUDGMENT
prove his monthly income. In this regard, this
Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa v. Manager,
2
Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited , has held
as under:
“13. In the instant case, it is not in
dispute that the Appellant was aged
about 35 years and was working as a
2
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Page 9
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 10
Coolie and was earning
4500/- per month
at the time of accident. This claim is
reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of
3000/- only on the assumption that wages
of the labourer during the relevant
period viz. in the year 2004, was
100/-
per day. This assumption in our view has
no basis. Before the Tribunal, though
Insurance Company was served, it did not
choose to appear before the Court nor
did it repudiated the claim of the
claimant. Therefore, there was no reason
for the Tribunal to have reduced the
claim of the claimant and determined the
monthly earning a sum of
3000/- p.m.
Secondly, the Appellant was working as a
Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect
him to produce any documentary evidence
to substantiate his claim. In the
absence of any other evidence contrary
to the claim made by the claimant, in
our view, in the facts of the present
case, the Tribunal should have accepted
the claim of the claimant.
14. We hasten to add that in all cases
and in all circumstances, the Tribunal
need not accept the claim of the
claimant in the absence of supporting
material. It depends on the facts of
each case. In a given case, if the claim
made is so exorbitant or if the claim
made is contrary to ground realities,
the Tribunal may not accept the claim
and may proceed to determine the
possible income by resorting to some
guess work, which may include the ground
realities prevailing at the relevant
point of time. In the present case,
JUDGMENT
Page 10
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 11
Appellant was working as a Coolie and in
and around the date of the accident, the
wage of the labourer was between
100/-
to
150/- per day or
4500/- per month.
In our view, the claim was honest and
bonafide and, therefore, there was no
reason for the Tribunal to have reduced
the monthly earning of the Appellant
from
4500/- to
3000/- per month. We,
therefore, accept his statement that his
monthly earning was
4500/-.”
9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the
Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of
monthly income of the appellant/claimant. On the
other hand, going by the present state of economy
and the rising prices in agricultural products, we
are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is
reasonably capable of earning
6,500/- per month.
JUDGMENT
10. Further, it is evident from the material
evidence on record that the appellant/claimant was
24 years old at the time of occurrence of the
accident. It is also established on record that he
was earning his livelihood by vending vegetables.
The issue regarding calculation of prospective
Page 11
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 12
increment of income in the future of self employed
people, came up in Santosh Devi v. National
3
Insurance Company Limited , wherein this Court has
held as under:
“14. We find it extremely difficult to
fathom any rationale for the observation
made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma's case that where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a
fixed salary without provision for annual
increment, etc., the Courts will usually
take only the actual income at the time
of death and a departure from this rule
should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special
circumstances. In our view, it will be
nave to say that the wages or total
emoluments/income of a person who is
self-employed or who is employed on a
fixed salary without provision for annual
increment, etc., would remain the same
throughout his life.
15. The rise in the cost of living
affects everyone across the board. It
does not make any distinction between
rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the
effect of rise in prices which directly
impacts the cost of living is minimal on
the rich and maximum on those who are
self-employed or who get fixed
income/emoluments. They are the worst
affected people. Therefore, they put
extra efforts to generate additional
JUDGMENT
3
(2012) 6 SCC 421
Page 12
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 13
income necessary for sustaining their
families.
16. The salaries of those employed under
the Central and State Governments and
their agencies/instrumentalities have
been revised from time to time to provide
a cushion against the rising prices and
provisions have been made for providing
security to the families of the deceased
employees. The salaries of those employed
in private sectors have also increased
manifold. Till about two decades ago,
nobody could have imagined that salary of
Class IV employee of the Government would
be in five figures and total emoluments
of those in higher echelons of service
will cross the figure of rupees one lac.
17. Although, the wages/income of those
employed in unorganized sectors has not
registered a corresponding increase and
has not kept pace with the increase in
the salaries of the Government employees
and those employed in private sectors but
it cannot be denied that there has been
incremental enhancement in the income of
those who are self-employed and even
those engaged on daily basis, monthly
basis or even seasonal basis. We can take
judicial notice of the fact that with a
view to meet the challenges posed by high
cost of living, the persons falling in
the latter category periodically increase
the cost of their labour. In this
context, it may be useful to give an
example of a tailor who earns his
livelihood by stitching cloths. If the
cost of living increases and the prices
JUDGMENT
Page 13
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 14
of essentials go up, it is but natural
for him to increase the cost of his
labour. So will be the cases of ordinary
skilled and unskilled labour, like,
barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc.
18. Therefore, we do not think that while
making the observations in the last three
lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's
judgment, the Court had intended to lay
down an absolute rule that there will be
no addition in the income of a person who
is self-employed or who is paid fixed
wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to
say that a person who is self-employed or
is engaged on fixed wages will also get
30 per cent increase in his total income
over a period of time and if he / she
becomes victim of accident then the same
formula deserves to be applied for
calculating the amount of compensation.”
Therefore, considering that the appellant/ claimant
was self employed and was 24 years of age, we hold
JUDGMENT
that he is entitled to 50% increment in the future
prospect of income based upon the principle laid
down in the Santosh Devi case (supra).
11. Further, regarding the use of multiplier, it
4
was held in the Sarla Verma v. DTC which was
upheld in Santosh Devi case (supra), as under:
4
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Page 14
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 15
“42. We therefore hold that the
multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
which starts with an operative multiplier
of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and
21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for
every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to
30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15
for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years,
M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
Therefore, applying the principle of Sarla Verma in
the present case, we hold that the High Court was
correct in applying the multiplier of 18 and we
uphold the same for the purpose for calculating the
JUDGMENT
amount of compensation to which the appellant/
claimant is entitled to.
12. With respect to the medical expenses incurred
by the appellant/claimant, he has produced medical
bills and incidental charges bills marked as
Exs. P-25 to P-201 and prescriptions at Exs. P-202
Page 15
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 16
to P-217 on the basis of which the Tribunal awarded
a compensation of
60,000/- under the head.
However, considering that the appellant might have
to change his artificial leg from time to time, we
shall allot an amount of
1,00,000/- under the head
of medical cost and incidental expenses to include
future medical costs.
Thus, the total amount which is awarded under
the head of ‘loss of future income’ including the
50% increment in the future, works out to be
17,90,100/- [(
65,00/- x 85/100 + 50/100 x 85/100
x
6,500/-) x 12 x 18].
JUDGMENT
13. Further, along with compensation under
conventional heads, the appellant/claimant is also
entitled to the cost of litigation as per the legal
principle laid down by this Court in the case of
5
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha . Therefore, under this
head, we find it just and proper to allow
25,000/-
5
Civil Appeal no. 2867 of 2012.
Page 16
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 17
14. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to
the compensation under the following heads:
Towards cost of
artificial leg
50,000/-
Towards pain and
suffering
75,000/-
Towards loss of marriage
prospectus
50,000/-
Towards loss of amenities
75,000/-
Towards medical and
incidental cost
1,00,000/-
Towards cost of
litigation
25,000/-
15. Also, by relying upon the principle laid down
by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar
6
Tragedy , we find it just and proper to allow
JUDGMENT
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
16. Hence, the total amount of claim the
appellant/claimant becomes entitled to is
21,65,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of application till the date of payment.
6
AIR 2012 SC 100
Page 17
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 18
Civil Appeal @ MFA 1132/2011 (MVC No. 147/2010)
17. The appellant/claimant in this appeal has
sustained type -3 compound fracture of right femur,
fracture of tibia, fracture of middle shaft tibia
and fibula. The injuries sustained and the
treatment taken by the appellant/claimant are
evident from discharge card Ex. P-225, photographs
marked as Ex. P-227 to P-234, disability
certificate marked as Ex. P-236, X-ray films Ex. P-
574 supported by the oral evidence of the claimant
and the doctor examined as PW-3 and PW-4
respectively. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh had stated in his
evidence that the appellant/ claimant has suffered
JUDGMENT
from permanent disability of 69% to lower limb. The
High Court has taken his functional disability at
25%. However, while determining the disability of
the claimants in motor accidents cases, this Court
might be sensitive about the functional disability
involved and the nature of the occupation,
particularly, if the occupation involves manual
Page 18
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 19
labour. Therefore, we hold that the High Court
erred in determining the functional disability of
the appellant in the present appeal on the lower
side. Since, the appellant/claimant in the present
appeal is also a vegetable vendor like the
appellant/claimant in Civil Appeal @ MFA 1131/2011,
we take his monthly income at
6,500/- on average
and for the reasons recorded in that appeal, we
determine the functional disability of the
appellant/claimant in the present appeal at 35%.
Considering his age, and based on the legal
principle laid down by this Court in the cases
mentioned supra, we hold his increment on future
JUDGMENT
income at 50% and the multiplier at 18. Therefore,
he is entitled to
7,37,100/- [(
6,500 x 35/100 +
50/100 x 35/100 x
6,500) x 12 x18] under the head
of ‘loss of future income’.
18. The amount awarded by the Tribunal and the High
Court under other conventional heads have not been
Page 19
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 20
disputed by the appellant/claimant by producing
contrary evidence. Therefore, the amount awarded
under those heads shall remain constant. Based on
the reasoning given by us in the earlier appeal,
the appellant/claimant is also entitled to the cost
of litigation at
25,000/-.
19. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to
compensation under the following heads:
Towards pain and
suffering
60,000/-
Towards medical and
incidental charges
1,00,000/-
Towards loss of
amenities
40,000/-
Towards future medical
expenses
15,000/-
JUDGMENT
Towards cost of
litigation
25,000/-
20. Therefore, the appellant/ claimant is entitled
to a total sum of
9,77,100/- with interest @ 9%
per annum based on the principle laid down by this
Court mentioned supra.
Page 20
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 21
Civil Appeal @ MFA 1133/2011 (MVC No. 148/2010)
21. The appellant/claimant in this appeal has
identified himself as a cleaner of lorries by
profession. As per the wound certificate Ex. P-219,
it has been established that the appellant/
rd
claimant has sustained fracture on middle 1/3 of
right humerus and comminuted fracture at the
rd rd
junction of upper 1/3 and middle 1/3 of right
tibia. The injuries sustained by him and the
treatment taken by him is evident from the
disability certificate marked as Ex. P-221, X-ray
film marked as Ex. P-222 which is supported by oral
evidence of the claimant and doctor examined as PW-
JUDGMENT
2 and PW-4 respectively. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh has stated
in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 22%
permanent disability to upper limb and 29% to lower
limb. The High Court has calculated the functional
disability to 13%. We are inclined to hold that the
High Court has erred in ascertaining the functional
disability to such a low percentage considering
Page 21
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 22
that the appellant/claimant earns his livelihood
through manual labour. It is evident from the
material evidence produced on record that the
appellant/claimant has suffered from comminuted
fracture in the accident as a result of which he
will not be able to bend, stretch or rotate his
right hand. He will also not be able to lift heavy
material which is so essential to carry on with his
business to earn his livelihood. Therefore, we are
inclined to observe that the appellant/claimant
suffers from a functional disability to the extent
of 85%.
22. Further, the appellant/claimant has claimed
JUDGMENT
that he has been earning
5,000/- p.m. by working
as a cleaner of the lorry. The Tribunal assessed
his monthly income at
3000/-. The High Court,
considering his age and his profession as a
cleaner, assessed his income at
3500/-. However,
based on the Karnataka State Minimum Wages Rule
Page 22
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 23
2012-2013, the appellant/claimant is entitled to
4246/- per month. Since, no written record of his
income could be produced before the Court, we take
his income, as per Revised Minimum Wages Rule at
4246/- rounding it off as
4300/- per month.
Further, an amount of
700/- can be added as daily
barter charges. Therefore, his monthly income
amounts to
5000/-.
23. Further, considering that the appellant/
claimant was 22 years of age, the multiplier
applicable to his age group is 18 and also based on
the legal principle laid down by this Court in
various cases, we hold that he is entitled to 50%
JUDGMENT
increment in future loss of income. Therefore, he
is entitled to an amount at
13,77,000/- [(
5000 x
85/100 + 50/100 x 85/100 x Rs.5,000) x 12 x 18].
24. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/
claimant in this appeal has produced medical bills
for
8000/-. He was treated as an inpatient for 15
Page 23
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 24
days in a private hospital. Therefore, considering
the same, the High Court has awarded a sum of
15000/- under the head of medical and incidental
expenses. However, considering the fact that the
appellant/claimant was also required to have
conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges for
proper recovery of health, we increase the
compensation under this head to
50,000/-. Further,
considering the fracture sustained by the
appellant/claimant and the evidence produced by the
doctor, another
5000/- awarded by the High Court
towards future expenses is upheld by us.
25. Further, towards loss of amenities, the
JUDGMENT
Tribunal has awarded
10,000/-. However,
considering the disability stated by the doctor and
the amount of discomfort and unhappiness he has to
undergo in the future life, the High Court has
awarded
20,000/- under this head. We intend to
observe that the amount awarded by the High Court
Page 24
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 25
under this head is very meager and inadequate
considering the age and the amount of disability.
Therefore, under this head, we award a sum of
50,000/-.
26. Apart from this, based on the reasoning we have
already provided above for the two other
appellants/claimants, the appellant/claimant in
this appeal, is also entitled to compensation under
the following heads:
Towards pain and
suffering
60,000/-
Towards medical and
incidental expenses
50,000/-
Towards loss of
amenities
50,000/-
JUDGMENT
Towards future
expenses
5,000/-
Towards cost of
litigation
25,000/-
27. Therefore, the appellant/ claimant in this
appeal is entitled to a total amount of
15,67,000/- with an interest of 9% per annum from
the date of application till the date of payment.
Page 25
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 26
Contributory Negligence
28. On the matter of extent of contribution to the
accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the
appellants/claimants herein should have taken
utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at
the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded
that the appellants/claimants were moving on the
middle of the road which led to the accident.
Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the
tractor has been charge sheeted under sections 279
and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and
JUDGMENT
circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants
also contributed to the accident to the extent of
25%. The High Court without assigning any reason
concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with
respect to contributory negligence. We find it
pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the
High Court erred in holding the appellants/
Page 26
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 27
claimants in these appeals liable for contributory
negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above
conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the
accident took place in the middle of the road in
the absence of any evidence to prove the same.
Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the
contribution of the appellants/claimants in the
accident is not proved by the respondents by
producing evidence and therefore, the finding of
the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence,
which has been upheld by the High Court, is set
aside.
29. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The
JUDGMENT
appellant/claimant in Civil Appeal @ MFA 1131/2011
(MVC No. 149/ 2010) is awarded a compensation of
amount at
21,65,100/-. The appellant/claimant in
Civil Appeal @ MFA 1132/2011 (MVC No. 147/2010) is
awarded a compensation of amount at
9,77,100/-.
The appellant/claimant in Civil Appeal @ MFA
Page 27
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 28
1133/2011 (MVC No. 148/2010) is awarded a
compensation of amount at
15,67,000/-. All the
appellants/claimants are entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of application till the
date of payment.
30. The name of the erstwhile first respondent has
been deleted from the array of parties by Order of
this Court dated 1.7.2013. The Insurance Company
remains the sole respondent in this case.
Therefore, we direct the Insurance Company to
deposit 50% of the awarded amount with
proportionate interest within four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, after
JUDGMENT
deducting the amount if already paid, in any of the
Nationalized Bank of the choice of the appellants
for a period of 3 years. During the said period, if
they want to withdraw a portion or entire deposited
amount for their personal or any other expenses,
including development of their asset, then they are
Page 28
C.A.@SLP(C) 16739-16741 of 2012 29
at liberty to file application before the Tribunal
for release of the deposited amount, which may be
considered by it and pass appropriate order in this
regard.
The rest of 50% amount awarded with
proportionate interest shall be paid to the
appellants/claimants by way of a demand draft
within four weeks. The Insurance Company is further
directed to submit compliance report before this
court within five weeks.
………………………………………………………………………J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
JUDGMENT
………………………………………………………………………J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi,
January 16, 2014
Page 29