Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Limited

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30754 of 2019]

RAJWATI @ RAJJO & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8180 OF 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30755 of 2019]

SEEMA & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

These two appeals are directed against the final orders dated 29.04.2019

passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter

referred to as ‘High Court’) in two Miscellaneous Appeals (being S.B.Misc.

Appeal No. 441/2019 and S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 561/2019) filed by

1 Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated

26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as

‘Learned Tribunal’) in Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No. 18/2016 (13/2014) and Misc.

Civil (M.A.C.) No. 14/2014. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident.

Hence, they have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common

judgment.

2. In both the matters, the High Court allowed the appeal of Respondent

No.1 herein and modified the award passed by the Learned Tribunal, and

reduced the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8179 OF 2022

3. The Appellants are the heirs and dependents of Ghasita Ram (hereinafter

referred to as ‘deceased’), who died on 29.10.2013 as a result of a motor

accident. The deceased was working as a driver in PNC Infratech Ltd. On

29.10.2013, at around about 8:00 PM, the deceased (along with his co-worker

Kanti Lal) was riding a motorcycle while returning home from work, when he

was hit from behind by a truck being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and

negligent manner. The deceased and his co-worker were severely injured and

2 died on the spot. The deceased has left behind five dependents who are the

Appellants before this Court.

4. The Appellants filed a claim petition [being Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No.

18/2016 (13/2014)] under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before

the Learned Tribunal, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.91,46,000/- along

with interest. Vide Judgment and Award dated 26.10.2018, the Learned Tribunal

awarded a compensation of Rs.19,64,218.75/- along with interest @ 7% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the

decretal amount.

5. The Learned Tribunal held that the deceased died as a result of the

injuries suffered in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of

Respondent No. 3 herein. The deceased’s age at the time of the accident was 41

years, and the same was ascertained by the Learned Tribunal on the basis of his

driving license (Exhibit-A1) which recorded his date of birth as 25.08.1972.

Exhibit-19 (Salary Certificate) and Exhibit-20 (Pay Slip) were produced. On the

basis of pay slip, the Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.11,225/- per month. To this, 25% was added towards future prospects

bringing his monthly income to Rs.14,031.25/-. The Learned Tribunal added a

multiplier of 15, thereby calculating the compensation to be Rs.25,25,635/-

(Rs.14,031.25 x 12 x 15). After deducting 1/4 th of the total income towards

3 personal expenses (amounting to Rs.6,31,406.25/-), the Learned Tribunal

arrived at a compensation of Rs.18,94,218.75/-. Further, the Learned Tribunal

awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal to the

Appellants under various heads was as under:

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 18,94,218.75/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 19,64,218.75/-

The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate of interest at 7% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the decretal

amount. The Respondents were held jointly or severally liable to pay the

said amount.

7. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the High

Court. Vide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, the High Court held

that the Learned Tribunal erred in relying on the salary certificate (Exhibit-19)

and pay slip (Exhibit-20) to ascertain the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/-

per month, as the person who issued the said documents was not examined

before the Learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income

4 at Rs. 4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the

relevant time. Out of this, 1/4 th amount was deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a multiplier

of 14 was added, and the compensation arrived at, was Rs.6,09,336/-

(Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 14). Further, 25% was awarded towards future prospects

(amounting to Rs.1,52,334/). Thus, the loss of dependency was calculated at

Rs.7,61,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/-). The High Court further awarded

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. Therefore, a total compensation of Rs.8,16,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- +

Rs.1,52,334/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) was awarded by the High Court. The

remaining terms and conditions of the original award passed by the Learned

Tribunal were affirmed.

8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court under various heads

is mentioned as under:

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 7,61,670/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 8,16,670/- @ 7% interest per annum

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5

10. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Appellants argued that the High Court was not justifying in rejecting the pay

slip and salary certificate of the deceased by holding that the person issuing the

said documents was not examined. It was contended that the deceased’s wife

(Appellant No. 1 herein) had testified before the Learned Tribunal that the

deceased was earning around Rs.17,000/- from his employment as a driver and

also by doing agricultural work. The same had been testified by his co-workers

(who were also eye-witnesses to the accident) as well. It was further contended

that Appellant No. 1’s evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased was

corroborated by the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased. There was no

occasion for the High Court to set aside the Learned Tribunal’s order with

respect to a pure finding of fact and re-appreciate the entire evidence. It was

also mentioned that the Appellants could not inadvertently produce the pass-

book of the deceased (reflecting his salary as Rs.12,000/- per month) before the

Learned Tribunal, and copies of the same have been filed before this Court.

11. To support the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Appellants

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.1

1 (2011) 10 SCC 509 6

12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of

Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.2

13. It was next contended that the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards

loss of consortium to five dependents is too meager and each dependent is

entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the said head. Reliance to

support the aforesaid contention has been made to the judgment of this Court in

the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram & Ors.3

14. Per contra, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma and Ms. Nidhi, Learned Counsel

for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, argued that the salary certificate

and pay slip of the deceased could not be proved either before the Learned

Tribunal or before the High Court, and as such, grant of compensation awarded

by the High Court is just, fair and reasonable and requires no interference by

this Court.

15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

16. In the case of Shila Datta (Supra), this Court held as under :-

2 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

7 “10. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Learned Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceeding in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Learned Tribunals and determination of compensation by Learned Tribunals:

…

(ii)The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the Learned Tribunal.

…

(vi) The Learned Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide Section 169 of the Act).”

17. Reference in this connection may also be made to the observations made

by this Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation & Ors.4, wherein it was observed as under :-

“It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of

4 (2020) 13 SCC 486

8 probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”

18. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. Vs. Satbir & Ors. 5, this

Court observed that it is well known that in a case relating to motor accident

claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be

done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.

19. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of

legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual

occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be

to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra)

and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal

trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the

standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability

and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is

followed in criminal cases”.

20. In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the High

Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exhibit 19) and pay slip (Exhibit 20)

of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two

aforementioned documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal. The

5 (2011) 3 SCC 646

9 said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were

also corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1

herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in

assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of

minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm

the findings of the Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the

deceased’s income at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two

documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to, Rs.11,225/- x

12 = Rs.1,34,700/-.

21. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view of the Learned

Tribunal in ascertaining the same as 41 years on the basis of the driving license

of the deceased (Exhibit A1) was correct, and the same is hereby affirmed.

However, the award of future prospects at 25% needs to be interfered with. In

view of the law laid down by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. 6, we are inclined to assess

the future prospects of the deceased, considering his age, at 30% of his annual

income (Rs.1,34,700/-), which works out to be Rs.40,410/-. Therefore, annual

income accounting for future prospects is Rs.1,34,700/- + Rs.40,410/- =

Rs.1,75,110. In view of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation &

6 (2017) 16 SCC 680

10 Anr.7, 1/4th of the said amount would be deducted towards the deceased’s

personal expenses as he was married and had 5 dependants. 1/4th of

Rs.1,75,110/- is Rs.43,777.5/-. Rs.1,75,110/- – Rs.43,777.5/- = Rs.1,31,332.5/-.

Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 14 (as the deceased was aged

between 40 to 50 years), the loss of dependency would be assessed at,

Rs.1,31,332.5/- x 14 = Rs.18,38,655/-.

22. The deceased left behind five dependants, i.e., the present Appellants. In

view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Learned Tribunal towards loss of

consortium is insufficient in our view, and deserves interference. A three Judge

Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Satinder Kaur @

Satwinder Kaur & Ors.8, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of

Rs.40,000/- and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of

Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by

10% after every three years. Accordingly, the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss

of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a

total of Rs.2,20,000/-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of

‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also very meagre. In our considered

opinion, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is liable to be paid towards funeral expenses.

7 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 (2021) 11 SCC 780

11 Similarly, award of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ is liable to be increased

to Rs.20,000/-.

23. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants under various

heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained by the Learned

Tribunal would be:

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of dependency Rs.18,38,655/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.2,20,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.20,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/- TOTAL Rs.20,98,655/-

24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest

payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to be calculated at 9% per

annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Learned Tribunal

till the date of realisation.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 8180 OF 2022

25. The connected Civil Appeal No. 8180 of 2022 (Seema & Ors. Vs. United

India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.) is arising out of the same motor

accident, and is based on the same set of facts and circumstances, the only

difference being the age of the deceased Kanti Lal which was 38 years at the

12 time of his death. The Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income at

Rs.11,225/-, and awarded 40% towards future prospects bringing his monthly

income to Rs.15,715/-. To this, the Tribunal added a multiplier of 15, thereby

calculating the compensation to be Rs.28,28,700/- (Rs.15,715/- x 12 x 15). After

deducting 1/4th of the total income towards personal expenses (amounting to

Rs.7,07,175/), the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of Rs.21,21,525/-. Further,

the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

26. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal to the

Appellants under various heads was as under:

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of dependency Rs.21,21,525/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.21,91,525/-

The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate interest at 7% per annum from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the decretal amount.

The Respondents were held jointly or severally liable to pay the said

amount.

13

27. On appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, the High Court vide

judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, held that the Tribunal erred in

relying on the salary certificate (Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-18) to

ascertain the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/- per month, as the person

who issued the said documents was not examined before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income at Rs.4,836/- per month in

view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Out of this,

1/4th amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, bringing

the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a multiplier of 15 was added, and the

compensation arrived at, was Rs.6,52,860/- (Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 15). Further,

40% was awarded towards future prospects (amounting to Rs.2,61,144/-),

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses.

28. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court under various heads

is mentioned as under:

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of Rs.9,14,004/- dependency 2 Loss of Rs.40,000/- consortium 3 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- TOTAL Rs.9,69,004/- @ 7% interest per annum

14

The remaining terms and conditions of the original award passed by the

Tribunal were affirmed.

29. Applying the same reasoning as in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs

United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (connected Civil Appeal No. 8179

of 2022), we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly determined the

deceased’s monthly income as Rs.11,225/- while placing reliance on

documentary evidence adduced in this regard, viz, the salary certificate

(Exhibit-17) and pay slip (Exhibit-18), as well as the statements of the

deceased’s wife and his co-workers. We do not agree with the view taken by the

High Court while holding that since the person issuing the two aforementioned

documents was not examined before the Tribunal the income of the deceased

was assessed at Rs.4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by

the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal

so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s income at Rs.11,225/- per

month. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to Rs.11,225/- x 12 =

Rs.1,34,700/-.

30. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the view of the Tribunal in

ascertaining the same as 38 years on the basis of the driving license of the

deceased (Exhibit A2) was correct, and the same is hereby affirmed. However,

the award of future prospects at 40% needs to be interfered with. In view of the

15 law laid down by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), we

are inclined to assess the future prospects of the deceased, considering his age,

at 50% of his annual income (Rs.1,34,700/-), which works out to be

Rs.67,350/-. Therefore, annual income accounting for future prospects is

Rs.1,34,700/- + Rs.67,350/- = Rs.2,02,050/-. In view of Sarla Verma (Supra),

1/4th of the said amount would be deducted towards the deceased’s personal

expenses as he was married and had 4 dependants. Hence, 1/4 th of Rs.2,02,050/-

is Rs.50,512.5/-, Rs.2,02,050/- – Rs.50,512.5/- = Rs.1,51,537.5/-. Accordingly,

after applying the multiplier of 15 (as the deceased was aged between 36 to 40

years), the loss of dependency would be assessed at, Rs.1,51,537.5/- x 15 =

Rs.22,73,062.5/-.

31. The deceased left behind four dependants, i.e., the present Appellants. In

view of this, the grant of Rs.40,000/- by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium

is insufficient in our view, and deserves interference. Placing reliance on the

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (Supra), the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a

total of Rs.1,76,000/-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of

‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also increased to Rs.20,000/- each.

32. Hence, the total compensation payable to the Appellants under various

heads on the basis of the deceased’s income as ascertained by the Learned

Tribunal would be:

16

Sl. HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE No. 1 Loss of dependency Rs.22,73,062.5/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,76,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.20,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 24,89,062.5/-

33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest

payable on the total compensation awarded is liable to be calculated at 9% per

annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Learned Tribunal

till the date of realisation.

34. As a result, the impugned judgments of the High Court dated 29.04.2019

in both the appeals are hereby set aside.

35. Accordingly, both the appeals stand allowed.

….......…………....……….,J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

….…..…....…................…,J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI;

09TH DECEMBER, 2022

17