| The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(CL) 1032 (SC) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
Section 166
There was sufficient evidence on record, which proved that the deceased was doing multiple works, High Court wrongly awarded compensation of Rs. 22,48,000 by reducing amount of income of the deceased from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month, thus, after re-assessment of income at Rs. 35,000, dependents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 38.81 lakh towards loss of income.
|
Application for compensation - Compensation awarded by High Court after reducing income of deceased - Doing of multiple works by deceased proved with evidence - Grant of compensation after re-assessment of deceased income
Person (R) met with an accident while driving registered vehicle. Dependents filed a claim before Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, opined that income of the deceased was Rs. 50,000 per month. Therefore, total amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal was Rs. 51,64,550. Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court, wherein the compensation of Rs. 22,48,000 was awarded by the High Court. The dependent filed an appeal against the order on the ground that the High Court had gone wrong in reducing the amount of income of the deceased from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month. Held: From the material placed on record by the dependents, it was evident that besides generating income from the land owned by the family in the form of sale of paddy and bananas, the deceased was also having income from supply of milk and coconuts to the school. There was also material available on record to show that he worked as a Government contractor. Considering the material placed on record by the dependents, income of the deceased deserved to be re-assessed as it was established that he was doing multiple works. Therefore, it would be reasonable to re-assess his income at Rs. 35,000 per month. Considering his age at the time of death as 52 years on the date of accident, applicable multiplier would be 11 and applying a cut of 1/4th of his personal expenses and adding 10 per cent for future prospects, the dependents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 38.81 lakh towards loss of income.
REFERRED : Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 TaxPub(CL) 0820 (SC)
FAVOUR : In favour of appellant.
A.Y. :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR & RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Vethambal v. Oriental Insurance Company
Civil Appeal No. 3482 of 2024
6 March, 2024
Appellant by: V. Chidambaresh, Sr. Advocate, Biju P. Raman, AOR, Usha Nandini V., John Thomas Arakal and Govind Venugopal, Advocates
Respondent by: Pankaj Seth, Advocate, Manjeet Chawla, AOR and Aashish Arora, Advocate
Rajesh Bindal, J.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|