Anita Devi & Ors vs Satyendra Narain Singh & Ors

Anita Devi and Ors. .......Appellants

Versus

Satyendra Narain Singh and Ors. .......Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a

Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

dismissing the Miscellaneous application filed by the

appellants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (in short the `Act').

3. Case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is as follows:

Pramod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased')

died in a vehicular accident in which Maruti Van bearing

registration No.ER-14P-4320 was involved. The Maruti Van

was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently.

Initially, Pramod Kumar had sustained grievous injuries. He

was first taken to the Government Hospital from which he was

referred to Bokaro General Hospital where he had expired on

18.4.2000. The deceased was 37 years of age. The petition for

compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Act was filed by

the dependants of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (in short the `MACT') on consideration of the

materials placed before it held that claimants are entitled to

2 compensation of Rs.1,39,808/-. Since the vehicle was the

subject matter of insurance, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as the `insurer') was held liable for the

compensation amount to the claimants alongwith interest @

9% per annum from the date of filing of the application. It was

found that there is no concrete material regarding the income

of the deceased. However, it was held that notional income of

Rs.15,000/- p.a. can be taken after deducting certain

amounts for personal use. The contribution was fixed at

Rs.10,216/- p.a. The multiplier of 13 was applied and

Rs.5,000/- was also granted for loss of expectation of life and

Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. An appeal was preferred by

the claimants questioning correctness of the award, taking the

stand that the quantum fixed was very low. High Court

dismissed the appeal holding that there was no evidence of

earning income.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that several documents were filed to

3 establish the income of the deceased. This aspect was not

taken note of either by the MACT or the High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

appellants did not produce any definite material regarding

income and the MACT was justified in taking the notional

income.

6. To test the correctness of the stand of the appellants that

several documents were filed to establish the income of the

deceased, the original records from MACT were called for. It

appears from the records that certain documents have been

filed. It is true that there are no copies of the income tax

return or the assessment order. But the documents on record

can certainly throw light on the income aspect.

7. Above being the position, we set aside the award of the

MACT as affirmed by the High Court and remit the matter to

MACT to consider the matter relating to income of the

4 deceased and determine the compensation afresh taking into

account the documents already on record.

8. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid extent with no

order as to costs.

.................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi, July 10, 2008

5