Example: stock market

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL …

REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL 20 of 2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) 29 of 2018]Kirti & Anr. Appellant(s) VERSUSO riental Insurance Company Respondent(s)JUDGMENTS urya Kant, J:Leave Granted. CIVIL appeals, which have been heard through videoconferencing, have been filed by three surviving dependents (who aretwo minor daughters and father) of the two deceased, impugning thejudgment dated of the High COURT of Delhi through whichthe motor accident compensation of Rs lakhs awarded by theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini (hereinafter, Tribunal ) under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( M)

caused by the accident’s blunt­force trauma. 4. An FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) against the driver, and the statement of an independent eyewitness (Constable Vishnu Dutt) was

Tags:

  Trauma, Blunt

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL …

1 REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL 20 of 2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) 29 of 2018]Kirti & Anr. Appellant(s) VERSUSO riental Insurance Company Respondent(s)JUDGMENTS urya Kant, J:Leave Granted. CIVIL appeals, which have been heard through videoconferencing, have been filed by three surviving dependents (who aretwo minor daughters and father) of the two deceased, impugning thejudgment dated of the High COURT of Delhi through whichthe motor accident compensation of Rs lakhs awarded by theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini (hereinafter, Tribunal ) under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( MVPage | 1 Act )

2 , was reduced to Rs 22 deceased couple, Vinod and Poonam, while commuting on amotorcycle in Delhi at around 7AM on were hit at anintersection by a Santro Car bearing registration DL 7CA 1053 . Theimpact immediately incapacitated both the deceased and they soonpassed away from cranio cerebral damage and haemorrhagic shockcaused by the accident s blunt force trauma . FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC ) against the driver, and thestatement of an independent eyewitness (Constable Vishnu Dutt) wasrecorded, which evidenced rash driving and negligence on part of thecar driver.

3 Subsequently, a claim petition was filed under Section 166of the MV Act by the two toddler daughters and septuagenarian parents of the deceased. This was contested by the driver and ownerclaiming that the deceased were themselves driving negligently andthe accident was as a result of their very own actions. Two witnesseswere examined by the appellant claimants and none by therespondents. The insurance company (Respondent No. 1) offered assettlement a compensation of Rs lakhs for the death of Poonamand Rs lakhs for | Tribunal took note of the chargesheet filed against the driverin the criminal case and also his failure to step into the witness on the strong testimony of the independent witness, it wasconcluded that the car driver was indeed driving rashly and thusliability ought to be fastened on the respondent insurer.

4 Regarding thequantum of compensation, the Tribunal began by determining theages of Poonam and Vinod as being 26 and 29 years , an age multiplier of 17 was adopted. Although thedeceased s father took a plea that Vinod was earning Rs 14,000 everymonth as a teacher at the Pratap Public School in Delhi, but he wasunable to substantiate his claim with any documentary , minimum wage in Delhi was adopted for computation of loss ofdependency. An additional 25% income was accounted for futureprospects of Poonam, and 1/3rd of Vinod s salary was deductedtowards personal expenses.

5 Rs lakhs was given for each deceasedas compensation for loss of love and affection, estate, and funeralcharges. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs lakhs forboth deceased to the computation was challenged by the respondent insurerbefore the High COURT , on grounds that the Tribunal had erroneouslyrelied upon the minimum wage as notified by Government of Delhi asthere was no proof that the deceased were employed in Delhi. Instead,Page | 3given their established residence in Haryana, the minimum wagenotified for that State ought to be the basis for calculation of loss ofdependency.

6 Simultaneously, addition of future prospects as well asnon deduction of personal expenses for Poonam was prayed to bereversed. Further, compensation was sought to be halved on groundsof contributory negligence. A categorical submission was madehighlighting the then divergent law on the issue of payment of futureprospects to non permanent employees, pending resolution of which,it was prayed that no such addition be granted to the High COURT concurred with these contentions andconsequently reduced the notional income for both deceased byadopting the lowest minimum wage applicable for unskilled workers inHaryana, instead of Delhi.

7 Similarly, 1/3rd of Poonam s income wasdeducted towards personal expenses and future prospects were deniedto both deceased. However, given the totality of circumstances andPoonam s contribution to her household, 25% additional gratuitousincome was added to her salary. The High COURT thus brought downthe total compensation payable to the claimants to Rs 22 OF reduction has been assailed before us by learned counselfor the claimants. Re computation is sought of compensation for lossPage | 4of dependency consequent to the decision of the Constitutional Benchof this COURT in National Insurance Co Ltd v.

8 Pranay Sethi1, whichauthoritatively settles the law on future prospects for non permanentemployees as well. Furthermore, the anomaly between the gratuitousincrease of income between Vinod and Poonam, and the usage ofunskilled minimum wage for Vinod have been brought to our notice. Counsel for the respondent insurer, on the other hand,has sought to forestall any increase in compensation, including underthe ground of future prospects. It is claimed that the High COURT sdecision was a consent order, and that the counsel for the appellantshad conceded to a lower computation under the head of loss ofdependency, which thus cannot be challenged before this for Personal have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions.

9 Itcannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were fourdependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death ofthe deceased s dependent mother ought not to be a reason forreduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilitiescrystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto1 (2017) 16 SCC | 5ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like howappellant claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases inminimum wages, the respondent insurer too cannot seek benefit ofthe subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legalproceedings.

10 Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard byeither counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled thatadvocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangementscontrary to compensation awarded by a COURT ought to be just,reasonable and consequently must undoubtedly be guided byprinciples of fairness, equity, and good Not only did thefamily of the deceased consist of septuagenarian parents, but therewere also two toddler girls, aged merely 3 and 4 years; each of whomrequires exceptional care and expenditure till they reach the stage ofself dependency.


Related search queries