Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5823 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. ...Appellant
RESPONDENT:
Lalnipuii ...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2006
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15507 of 2005)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5824 2006
(Arising out of SLP( C) Nos. 14260-14261 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court , Aizwal Bench at
Aizwal. By the order dated 18.2.2002, the appeal filed by the
appellant was dismissed for default after hearing learned
counsel for the respondent. Applications filed for restoration
of the appeal after condonation of delay in presentation of the
same also stood dismissed. Though the orders challenged in
the appeals related to restoration of the appeal dismissed for
default, it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by
remitting the matter back to High Court for consideration on
merits. The main ground taken by the appellant before the
High Court was that it had no notice of the transfer of the case
from the Guwahati Bench to the Aizwal Bench and therefore,
there was no appearance. This plea was turned down by the
High Court on the ground that sufficient notice was given to
the appellant. Considering the long passage of time and, as
agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are
taken up for disposal on merits of the facts involved.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
One Zoremsangi, who was member of the Indian
Information Service under the Central Government and
working under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India lost her life in a road accident on
8.7.1997. She was travelling from Mumbai to Pune by a bus
belonging to the appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ’Corporation’). A
Claim Petition was filed by her mother who is respondent
herein. In the Claim Petition it was stated that she was aged
about 31 years and 2 months at the time of accident and was
drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-. Her pay was revised as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission and the
scale of pay was Rs.8,000-275-13,500/- and on that basis her
total emoluments would be Rs.9,340/- with effect from
1.1.1996 i.e. effective date fixed by the Fifth Pay Commission.
The claimant made a claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Pursuant to
the notice the appellant entered appearance and took the
preliminary stand that the application was not maintainable
and there was no cause of action. On the basis of the
pleadings several issues were framed.
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizwal ( in short the
’Tribunal’) considering the material on record awarded
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and granted interest at the
rate of 15% from the date of judgment till realization. This
sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was fixed on the following basis:
1. Income of the deceased = Rs.1,12,080/-
per annum Rs.9,340 x 12
2. According to the Schedule
Rs.40,000/- annual income
Total Compensation is
Fixed at Rs.6,40,000/-
Therefore Rs.(6,40,000 x 112.080)
40,000 = Rs.17,93, 280/-
3. Deducting one third expenses
if she still alive as per note
under the Schedule. (-) = Rs. 5,97,760/-
Rs.11,95,520/-
4. Funeral Expenses. = + Rs. 2,000/-
5. Loss of estate. = + Rs.2,500/-
6. Total compensation due
to the claimant is =Rs.12,00,020/-
One month time was granted to satisfy the Award.
The appellant filed an appeal which was originally heard
by the Guwahati Bench, and was subsequently transferred to
the Aizwal Bench. The Award was questioned by the appellant
before the Guwahati Bench where the same was registered but
the same was transferred to the Aizwal Bench. As noted
above, taking into account the non-appearance of the counsel
at the time of hearing, the application was dismissed. The
applications for restoration and for condonation of delay in
filing the said application were dismissed. Therefore, these
appeals are filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
High Court ought to have noticed that the case was
transferred from the Guwahati Bench to the Aizwal Bench and
therefore, there was no appearance on the date fixed. The
High Court should not have summarily dismissed the appeal
particularly when it was noted in the order that the learned
counsel for the respondent was heard. High Court did not take
note of the fact that the claimant was the mother, who is the
wife of the Chief Secretary of the State. There was no averment
in the Claim Petition that the respondent was dependant on
the deceased. On the contrary, she being the wife of the Chief
Secretary by no stretch of imagination be treated as having
any dependency on the income of the deceased. A multiplier
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
of 17 applied is clearly was on higher side.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that no plausible reason was shown to the High
Court for the non-appearance on the date fixed and therefore,
belated applications for restoration and condonation of delay
for presentation of the application were rightly rejected. So far
as the plea of dependency is concerned, it is stated that this
aspect was not raised before the Tribunal and on the contrary
the only ground raised was that no part of the cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Few facts need to be noted.
Father of the deceased was not the claimant and it was
only the mother. There was no material adduced before the
Tribunal to show any dependency on the income of the
deceased. The multiplier of 17 appears to have been taken on
the basis of the age of the deceased. The interest rate of 15%
is fixed also on the higher side.
It is fairly a settled position in law that while parents are
the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is
the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier
to be adopted. On that score it is clear that the Tribunal’s
assessment of the quantum of Award was incorrect. (See: Jyoti
Kaul and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. (2002(6) SCC 306),
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Swaranlata Das and
Others (1993 Supp (2) SCC 743) and C.K. Subramania Iyer
and Ors. v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Six Ors. (1969 (3) SCC
64).
Deceased was the only daughter of her parents and was
not staying with her parents and there is no material to show
that she was contributing to the household expenses. Taking
into account the age of the claimant and the monthly income
as noticed by the Tribunal, a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall
be payable by the appellant to the respondent as Award. This
quantum is fixed taking into account the age of the claimant,
income of the deceased and other relevant factors like loss of
love and affection, mental shock etc. Interest is fixed at the
rate of 7.5% from the date of claim till payment. It is stated
that a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid to the
respondent. If any further amount is to be paid on the basis of
the direction as contained above, the same shall be paid
within three months from today. If, however, the amount
already paid is in excess of the entitlement, the same shall be
returned within a period of three months.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no orders as
to costs.