VISHAL & ORS. VS YUGRAJ SINGH DHINDSA & ORS MACT JUDGEMENTS

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 6612 /2022 (arising out of SLP(C) No.746/2019) VISHAL & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS YUGRAJ SINGH DHINDSA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 4384 of 2013. Through the said judgment, the High Court while enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’ for short) through the award dated 08.01.2013, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,04,967/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) from Rs.4,62,967/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven Only) which was awarded by the MACT but the appellants contend that the just compensation is not awarded. 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants while seeking enhancement of the compensation would contend that the deceased, who was a twenty year old daughter/ sister of the claimants herein, was a B.Com graduate and was taking tuition classes at her home for school children and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) per month. It is contended that affidavits of two of the parents, who were sending their children for tuitions, were also filed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents would point out that there is no material evidence with regard to the income which the deceased was earning and the affidavits of the parents, who were stated to have been sending their children to the deceased for tuition classes, by itself, does not establish the actual income. In that light, it is contended that the Tribunal as well as the High Court have taken the notional income into consideration, which is appropriate and does not call for interference. 6. In the present facts, as noted, there is no dispute with regard to the accident having occurred and the daughter/sister of the claimants having died in the said accident as also about her age at the time of the accident. 7. The only question for consideration herein is the appropriate income to be reckoned since, there is no documentary evidence relating to the income of the deceased. 3 8. In that regard, even if the fact that the deceased was taking tuitions is noted, the amount as claimed cannot be accepted in the absence of documents. However, taking into consideration that the accident had occurred in the year 2010 and the fact that the deceased was a B.Com graduate and the fact of taking tuition classes being established with the sworn statement of parents, the amount as reckoned by the High Court is on the lower side. 9. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to reckon the income on a notional basis at Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) per month. Since, she was aged 20 years at the time of her death, she would be entitled to future prospects at 40% of the said amount. If the same is done, the monthly income would be in the sum of Rs. 9,800/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only). As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the said amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses. 10. On that basis, on applying the multiplier of ‘18’, the appellants would be entitled to loss of the pendency of Rs. 10,58,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only). In addition to the said amount, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) is awarded on the conventional heads. Therefore, the appellants in all would be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,28,400/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only), as compensation. 11. The enhanced portion of the amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition shall be calculated and the enhanced portion of the amount shall be 4 deposited before the MACT within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment. 12. The amount shall thereafter be disbursed to the claimants in the same manner it was apportioned at the first instance by the Tribunal. 13. The right of recovery given to the Insurance Company shall continue to subsist even in respect of the enhanced amount. 14. The Appeal is accordingly, allowed in the aforestated terms. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA) New Delhi 14th September, 2022