Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh

Citation: 2013 9 SCC 54

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Case No: 3860/2013

Appellants: Rajesh

Respondents: Rajbir Singh

Decided On: 12-04-2013

Statues Referred: Motor Vehicle Act,1988

Case Referred:

• Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 674.
• Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121
• Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Limited and Ors.

Bench: G.S. Singvi, Kurian Joseph, S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Facts:

The appellant is the widow (Smt. Rajesh) along with three minor children of late Bijender Singh (deceased). The malignant accident took place on 02-10-2007. The deceased was working as a clerk in a school in Haryana with a monthly salary of ₹6,926/-.

The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹8,96,500/- with interest 7.5% from the date of the filling of the petition, with a condition that 60% would got to the widow and remaining 40% to the minor where the share of the minor shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till they attained majority.

The petitioner dissatisfied with the claim the petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Whereafter the High Court modified the award to 10,17,000/- with interest @7.5%.

Still dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the tribunal is capable to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application U/S 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Determination of just compensation.

Obiter dicta:

The compensation does not become just merely because the tribunal considered it to be just rather it should be based upon fair and equitable grounds, on the facts and circumstances of each case. As far as money can do, the loss suffered due to wrong committed must be compensated by applying the principle relating to award of compensation.

The cases related to socio-economic condition should not be precedent centric and should be reformed keeping in view the ever-changing societal values, impact of globalisation upon economy and its adverse effect on common people.

Ratio decedendi:

In various cases the Court has increased the income by 100% (Susamma Thomas), and sometimes by 7% (Abati Bezbaruah) depending upon the facts and circumstances of the cases.

Therefore the thumb rule the Court adopted was that where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, 50% of the income shall be added to the actual salary income of the deceased as future prospects. Whereas there should be addition of 30% for an age between 40 to 50 and for age more than 50 years no addition shall be made.

The Court held that the rationale in Sarla Verma’s Case that where the deceased was self-employed or was paid a fixed income, then the Court shall consider the income at the time of death and deviation from this principle shall be made only in rare cases, was hard to brace.

Rise in cost of living has minimal effect upon rich and maximum effect upon those who are self-employed or live on fixed income. They are severely affected.

The Court held that those involved in self-employment or fixed wages activities shall be entitled to a 30% increment in their total income over a period of time and if such person become victim of accident then the said rule shall be applied to determine the amount of compensation.

The Claims Tribunal is competent to award compensation which should be just U/S 168 of the Act. That apart, there is no other restriction upon the competence of the tribunal with regard to awarding the compensation. It is incumbent upon Court that it should diligently award compensation in accident cases to the injured or the dependants to save them from facing the vagaries of life due to discontinuance of income.

Even if the report on accident does not lay claim for damages, it is incumbent upon Court to award compensation based upon the rule of assessment of damages. Hence it is the duty of the Court to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, ignoring the claim demanded in the application for compensation.

With regard to ‘funeral expenses’ the Court held that the Claims Tribunal had be much frugal to award compensation. In the light of increasing costs of funeral and various other expenses involved due to fulfilment of religious practice, the Court held it just, equitable and reasonable to award ₹ 25,000/- as ‘funeral expenses’.

The salary of the deceased Bijendar Singh after Sixth Pay Commission increased to ₹9,250/-. The Court took recognition of it.

Judgment:

The Apex Court’s bench comprising of G.S. Singvi, Kurian Joseph, S.A. Bobde, JJ, held the following:

Allowing the appeal, hon’ble Court set aside the award granted by the Tribunal. And held that the claimant is qualified to a compensation of ₹ 22,01,320/- with interest@ 7.5% p.a from 26.11.2007 till realisation.

The compensation amount re-assessed as under:

The insurance company was directed to pay the 50% of the award via demand draft, to be delivered to the address given by the claimant within three months. The balance amount in equal proportion shall be prepared in the name of the minor children and the mother and shall be delivered to the respective address within three months.

The share of the minor shall be deposited in the nationalized bank where the amount awarded by the tribunal is deposited, until they attain majority.

Conclusion:

Securing the rights of the last man standing in this country is the noble task of the Supreme Court which it earnestly performed in the above case. Awarding compensation especially in accident cases is a subtle piece of work. One whose life is lost cannot be brought back but as far as money can do, the Court of law is competent to award monetary compensation so as to enable the dependants to smoothly live their lives with dignity.

The Supreme Court does not end up only awarding compensation but re-assessed it to ensure that the amount awarded is just, reasonable, fair and equitable.

Kaushal Agarwal.