B. Sangeetha vs Omr Travel Access Pvt. Ltd.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 33532 of 2018)

B Sangeetha & Anr .... Appellant(s)

Versus

OMR Travel Access Pvt Ltd & Anr ....Respondent(s)

ORDER

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 27 June 2017 of a Division

Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court in an appeal against

an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1, enhanced the compensation payable

to the appellants from Rs 20,11,000 to Rs 33,07,000. The amount was directed to be

apportioned between the appellants, who are the wife and mother of the deceased. Signature Not Verified

The liability has been fastened jointly and severally on the owner of the offending Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2020.06.09 15:31:29 IST Reason:

vehicle and the insurer.

1“Tribunal” 2

3 The issue in the present appeal pertains only to the quantum of compensation.

4. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the monthly salary of the deceased

proximate to the date of the accident (which took place on 21 June 2012) was Rs

9,000.The High Court determined the income at Rs 15,000 per month. Learned

Counsel for the appellants submits that in the face of ample evidence produced by the

appellants, the High Court was not justified in discarding the salary certificate for May

2012.

5. The deceased was a BSc in computers and was employed in a private company. The

spouse of the deceased, who deposed in support of the claim for compensation,

produced the salary certificates of the deceased and bank statements. The High Court

has adverted to the salary certificates and the bank statements, which were relied upon

by the appellants, in the course of its judgment. Exhibit P-8, which was a salary

certificate for the month of May 2012 indicated that the salary of the deceased was Rs

23,419. However, the High Court held that the salary, as reflected in the said certificate,

should not be accepted having regard to the salary certificates for the anterior period

which had also been produced on the record, which showed a lower salary.

6. The Tribunal held that though the deceased had been employed with the Sauter

Race Technologies Private Limited, the salary certificate that was produced was of

Carrier Race Technologies Limited. This finding has been stressed upon by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer. On this aspect of the matter, the cross-

examination of the claimant indicates that no effort was made by the insurer to discredit

the salary certificate which was produced by the spouse of the deceased. In the course 3

of her deposition, she explained that Carrier Race Technologies Limited was a sister

concern. Salary certificates and bank statements were produced.

7. Since the bank statements and the certificates were duly proved and marked, there

was no reason or justification for discarding the salary certificate for the month of May

2012, which indicates that the net pay of the deceased was Rs 23,419.This is for the

period proximate to the accident. The compensation awarded by the High Court must

hence be enhanced in accordance with the legal principles which emerge from the

decisions of this court. The compensation payable to the appellants is recomputed as

follows:

(i) Annual Income computed at the rate of 2,81,028 Rs 23,419 per month

(ii) Less one third towards personal expenses 93,676

(iii) Net income (I minus ii) 1,87,352

(iv) Add future prospects of 40% 74,941

(v) Total income 2,62,293

(vi) Total compensation 44,58,981

(multiplier of 17)

(vii) Add standard additions 70,000

(viii) Total compensation payable 45,28,981

8. In granting future prospects, the standard addition of Rs 70,000 and adopting a

multiplier of 17, we are guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in National 4

Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi2. There is no dispute in regard to the

correctness of the multiplier applied by the High Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, we direct that the appellants shall be entitled to a

total compensation of Rs 45,28,981 rounded off to Rs 45.29 lakhs on which interest

shall be payable at nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition

until payment.

10. The enhanced amount shall be paid over in equal proportion to the appellants,

together with accrued interest, if any.

11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.

12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Hemant Gupta]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Ajay Rastogi]

New Delhi;

June 05, 2020

2(2017) 16 SCC 680 5

ITEM NO.23 Virtual Court 4 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).33532/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-06-2018 in CMA No. 2667/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)

B. SANGEETHA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS

OMR TRAVEL ACCESS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)

(WITH No. 19108/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 05-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv.

Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed

reportable order. No order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)