Vethambal vs The Oriental Insurance Company

2024 INSC 180 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3482 OF 2024

VETHAMBAL AND OTHERS … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Aggrieved against the judgment 1 of the High Court 2 , vide

which the compensation awarded to the appellants (claimants) by the

Tribunal3 was reduced, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Ravisankar, aged 52 years, met with

an accident on 09.12.2012, at about 8.30 P.M. while driving TVS Starcity Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.03.06 16:01:04 IST Reason: 1 Judgement dated 04.04.2019 2 Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai 3 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli

Page 1 of 9 bearing registration No. TN-72-AV-0927, which was insured with

respondent No. 1-Insurance Company. FIR No. 442 dated 10.12.2012 was

registered at Police Station Kalakkaadu, District Tirunelveli. A claim

petition 4 was filed by the dependants of the deceased claiming

compensation of ₹1,00,00,000/-. It was pleaded that the deceased was

doing multiple activities. Besides being an agriculturist growing bananas,

coconuts and paddy, he was also running a dairy farm and was a

Government contractor. He was the sole bread earner of the family, who

left behind his old mother, wife, daughter and son, who are the appellants

before this Court.

3. The accident and the liability of the Insurance Company as

such are not in dispute.

4. The only dispute raised in the present appeal is regarding the

quantum of compensation to which the appellants are entitled to.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the

parties, opined that the income of the deceased was ₹50,000/- per month.

Applying a cut of 1/4th for his personal expenses and adding 10% for

future prospects, assessed total compensation towards loss of income at

4 M.C.O.P. No. 281 of 2013 Page 2 of 9 ₹51,04,550/-. Besides that, ₹15,000/- were awarded towards loss of estate,

₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium and ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses.

The total amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal was

₹51,64,550/-5. Interest @8% per annum was also awarded.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, the

Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court. The main

issue raised was regarding the income of the deceased. Accepting the

contentions raised by the Insurance Company, the High Court reduced

the income of the deceased from ₹50,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month. After

adding 10% towards future prospects, application of 1/4th cut on account

of personal expenses and after applying a multiplier of 11, the loss of

income was assessed at ₹21,78,000/-. Adding a sum of ₹70,000/- under

the conventional heads, compensation of ₹22,48,000/- was awarded. The

interest awarded by the Tribunal was not disturbed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High

Court had gone wrong in reducing the amount of income of the deceased

from ₹50,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month. There is ample evidence on record

to show that whatever was assessed by the Tribunal was just and fair. The

5 There seems to be some error in the calculation

Page 3 of 9 deceased had been supplying milk and coconuts to Donavoor Santhosha

Vidhayalaya School, from which he had received a sum of ₹8,52,447/-

during the period from 20.09.2011 to 28.11.2012 (14 months). He was also

growing paddy on his land from which receipt claimed was ₹7,29,900/-.

He also received ₹16,36,398/- from sale of bananas grown on the land

owned by him. As he was also working as a Government contractor, his

annual income therefrom was ₹6,00,000/-. The Tribunal had already taken

a very conservative view of the matter and assessed the income at

₹50,000/- per month. Though the amount assessed by the Tribunal was

not reasonable, still the appellants did not challenge the same any further.

However, the Insurance Company, with a view to rubbing salt on the

wounds, challenged the reasonable compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. Sole earning member of the family had died leaving behind four

dependants. Value of the life cannot be assessed but whatever meagre

amount the Tribunal awarded, the appellants felt satisfied. The prayer is

for setting aside the judgment of the High Court and to restore that of the

Tribunal.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submitted that it is a case where unimaginable claims were

Page 4 of 9 made by the appellants. The land on which bananas were being grown is

still there which is being used by the family for growing the same, hence

there is no loss of income on that account. There is no clinching evidence

on record to show that the deceased was working as a Government

contractor regularly and the income was being generated therefrom.

Total receipts from supply of milk and coconuts to the school cannot be

said to be the income. The High Court had taken a reasonable view as

compensation to be awarded to the dependants of a deceased has to be

just and reasonable and not the kind of bonanza. There is no error in the

judgment of the High Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant referred record.

10. The basic facts, namely, the date of accident, the age of the

deceased and dependency are not in dispute. There is no dispute on the

negligence part also. The only issue sought to be raised is with reference

to the assessment of the income of the deceased.

11. From the material placed on record by the appellants, it is

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

Page 5 of 9 having income from supply of milk and coconuts to the school. There is

also material available on record to show that he worked as a Government

contractor. Meaning thereby, to make the lives of his family members

comfortable, the deceased was multi-tasking and he was not engaged in

a 9.00 to 5.00 P.M. job.

12. From the material available on record, in the form of Ex. P12

(receipt issued by the school) and Ex. P13 (bank account statement of the

deceased) and statement of PW3-Thiru. Ponraj (Principal of the School),

the deceased received a sum of ₹8,52,447/- from the school for the period

from 20.09.2011 to 28.11.2012 (14 months) on account of supply of milk

and coconuts. Though the entire amount received by the deceased from

the school on account of supply of milk and coconuts cannot be said to be

his income but it proves that he was engaged in this business.

13. As far as the income from the agriculture is concerned, the

appellants claimed that the deceased was the only person in the family

who was taking care of the land. His share in the land was 07 acres and 47

cents though the family owned 27 acres and 78 cents. He was growing

bananas and paddy. It was claimed that his receipts therefrom was

₹23,66,298/-. Though part of the aforesaid land was said to be wet land,

Page 6 of 9 hence not cultivable but it came in evidence of RW3-Thiru. Ramasamy,

Village Administrative Officer, that after the death of Ravi Shankar in the

accident in question, the land is not being cultivated. Meaning thereby,

on account of the death of the deceased, the income from the land must

have been reduced. The appellants had claimed receipts on that account

to the tune of ₹25,00,000/-. Further, Thiru. Kalayana Sundram, Income Tax

Officer, appeared as RW2. He stated that the deceased did not pay

income tax of ₹1,48,598/- for the year 2010-11. There is also evidence on

record to show that the deceased received ₹22,23,553/- from Tirunelveli

Municipal Corporation for execution of a works contract during the year

2011-12.

14. The High Court on a very conservative basis assessed the

income of the deceased at ₹20,000/- per month, bifurcating the same at

₹8,000/- per month for supply of milk to the school, ₹5,000/- per month

from agriculture and ₹7,000/- per month from working as a contractor. In

our opinion, considering the material placed on record by the appellants,

income of the deceased deserves to be re-assessed as it is established

that he was doing multiple works. It also came on record that after his

death, the land was lying barren and was not being cultivated.

Page 7 of 9

15. Assessment of compensation cannot be done with

mathematical precision. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also provides for

assessment of just and fair compensation. In our opinion, considering the

material placed on record by the appellants, as has been referred to

above, and value of the labour being put in by the deceased in

agriculture, it would be reasonable to assess his income at ₹35,000/- per

month. Considering his age at the time of death as 52 years on the date of

accident, the applicable multiplier would be 11 as per the judgment of

this Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another 6 approved by this Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others7.

16. Hence, the compensation on the basis of income assessed by

this Court would be as under:

Sl. No. Head Amount (in ₹) A Monthly Dependency 35,000/- B Future Prospects (10 % of Monthly 3,500/- Dependency) C ¼ deduction towards personal 9,625/- expenses D Total Dependency 28,875/- (A+B-C) E Age Multiplier 11 F Compensation (D x 12 x 11) 38,11,500/-

6 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 (2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 8 of 9 G Loss of Estate 15,000/- H Funeral Expenses 15,000/- I Loss of Consortium 40,000/- Total 38,81,500/-

17. Thus, the appellants are found entitled to compensation of

₹38,81,500/- with interest @8% from the date of filing of the claim petition

till realization. Ordered accordingly. The judgment of the High Court is

modified to the extent mentioned above.

18. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

……………….……………..J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

……………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi March 6, 2024.

Page 9 of 9