Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11495 OF 2018
(Arising from Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22334/2017)
Ramla and others ..Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited
and others ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The claimants are before this Court seeking further
enhancement of compensation from Rs. 21,53,000/ awarded by
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court enhanced the compensation from
Rs.11,83,000/ to Rs.21,53,000/.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2018.11.30
16:02:03 IST
Reason:
1
3. In the accident that occurred on 10.05.2008, the deceased
Ismail succumbed to death due to grievous injuries. The wife
(about 22 years), two children (aged about 3 years and 9 months
respectively) and aged father (about 90 years of age) of the
deceased moved a claim petition before the Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal, Vatakara (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’) seeking a total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/. The
Tribunal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/ for the purpose of compensation and while
deducting half amount towards personal expenses, awarded a
total compensation of Rs.11,83,000/ with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its
realization.
4. The respondent–Insurance Company filed an appeal before
the High Court against the award of the Tribunal, whereas the
claimants filed cross objections seeking enhancement in
compensation. As mentioned supra, the High Court awarded a
sum of Rs.9,70,000/ as an additional compensation, i.e., in
addition to the compensation of Rs.11,83,000/ awarded by the
Tribunal. While doing so, the High Court took into consideration
the salary certificate (Exhibit A6) of the deceased issued by Al
2
Rawabi Food Centre, Doha disclosing a salary of 2500 Qatar
Riyals, which is equivalent to Rs.30,000/ per month. The
salary certificate was attested/counter signed by the Assistant
Consulate Officer, Embassy of India, Doha, which also discloses
that the deceased was an employee of AlRawabi Food Centre,
Doha during the relevant point of time. In our considered
opinion, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the
High Court was just and proper.
5. Though we find that the overall compensation awarded by
the High Court is just and reasonable in respect of all the heads
(except under the head of loss of dependency), in our considered
rd
opinion, the High Court has faulted in deducting 2/3 of the total
income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, while
quantifying the compensation. Taking into consideration the
high cost of living at Doha, as observed by the High Court as well
as the fact that the deceased was having his wife, two minor
children and aged father as dependants and as there is no other
earning member in the family of the deceased, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, a deduction of 40% of the salary for
the personal expenses would be appropriate for the purpose of
quantifying compensation. Taking into consideration such
3
factors including the factor of uncertainties in the job in that
Country as well as uncertainty in staying back in the said
country for a longer period and in the absence of any material to
show as to for how many years the deceased was having contract
to serve, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.
28,00,000/ inclusive of the compensation awarded by the High
Court, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
filing the claim petition till its realization. The said amount is
just and reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the
case.
6. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/ in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal,
we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to
is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no
restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding
the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court
under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award
“just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and
welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is
reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It
cannot be said to have become timebarred. Further, there is no
4
need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The
Courts are duty bound to award just compensation. (See the
judgments of this Court in the cases of (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal
1 2
Singh (b) Magma General Insurance v . Nanu Ram (c) Ibrahim v .
3
.
Raju )
7. Accordingly, the following order is made:
The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs. 28,00,000/ along with interest at the rate of 8% from the
date of filing the claim petition till its realization, as awarded by
the High Court, which shall be paid by the respondent –
Insurance Company, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the amount
of compensation, if any, already paid to the claimants, shall be
deducted out of the enhanced compensation.
8. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
………………………………..J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
New Delhi; ……..……………………………………J.
November 30, 2018. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
1 (2003) 2 SCC 274.
2 (2018) SCC Online SC 1546 (Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018).
3 (2011) 10 SCC 634.
5