MEENABEN PANKAJKUMAR JOSHI & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 596

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, DEEPAK VERMA

Case summary

MEENABEN PANKAJKUMAR JOSHI & ORS. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 12 S. C. R. 596 MEENABEN PANKAJKUMAR JOSHI & ORS. ' • v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCi;: CO. LTD. (Civil Appei=il No. 5194 of 2009) AUGUST 7, 2009 [S. B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ. ) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 168 - Compensation - ~ .... Award of - Claimant's husband, director of a company and also running proprietorship concern - Death in motor vehicle accident -- Claim of compensation - Filing of income tax returns for assessment year disclosing income - Compensation awarded by tribunal with proportionate costs - High Court modifying the compensation amount as also rate of interest - On appeal held : In terms of s. 168, it is • • necessary for the tribunal to award fair compensation ,... Additional documents have been produced before this Court - In the interest ofjustice, matter remitted back to tribunal to consider the additional documents as aqditional evidence for awarding compensation. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nq. !? 194 of ;mo~.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27. 2. 2007 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 2140 of 2006. K. V. Vishwanathan, Abhisehk Kaushik, Janak Shah, Rauf Rahim Yadunandan Bansal for the Appellants. ... Salil Paul, Manjeet Chawla for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. ME;~NABEN PANKAJKUMAR JOSHI & ORS. v. NEW 597 INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. B. SINHA, J. ] • "' 2. The claimants in a rnotor accid~nt claims are before us aggrieved by and qissatisfied with the j4cjgment and a,wa. rd passed by a Division Bench of the Hi~h Court of Guja. ra. t whereby and whereunder a judgment ard award dated 13. 122005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-4, Gandhidham - Kutch in MAC Petition No. 297 of 2005 (original No. 2 of 1998) wa~ modified. 3. The deceased Raj Kumar Joshi was a Director of a ~ Company commonly known as Kandla Clearing Agency Private Limited. He was drawing a salary of Rs.

7,500/- per month. He was, however, also running a proprietorship concern carrying on business in 'Clearing and Forwarding' in the name of Ultra Clearing and Forwarding Company. Appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming ... ,, a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs as compensation in respect of the death , • of the said Raj Kumar Joshi who died in a motor vehicle accident and with a view to prove their case, appellants, inter i'llia, filed income tax returns for the assessment years 1996- 97 and 1! 397-98 disclosing the income from salary from the Directorship in Ki'! ndla Clearing Agency Private Limited at Rs. 66,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- respectively. The sciid returns were accompanied by a certificate issued by the Manager/ ~· r Accountant of the C0. rnp consigned would not arise. 6. Before us, an application has been filed seeking permission to reply upon additional documents containing various bills, debit notes, etc.

to show the nature of expenditure incurred by the said proprietorship concern. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the provisions of Section . ,. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof the Tribunal is required to award a fair compensation, the additional documents sought to be produced before us should be taken into evidence. We say so because the appellants have contended that those documents were not available at ·the relevant time. Ev~dently, they have not been brought on records • • before the Tribunal also. b. We, ~herefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the matter relating to award of compensation is considered afresh by the Tribunal upon taking 8 additional documents placed before us as additional evidence. The claimants unless admit or formal proof thereof is dispensed with, may prove the said documents by examining witnesses.

The respondents, it goes without saying, would be entitled to cross-examine the said witnesses produced on behalf of the appellants and would furthermore be entitled to examine their witnesses in this behalf. We make it clear that all other findings arrived at by the Tribunal and as modiified by the High Court shall remain undisturbed. 9. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent and the matte~ is remanded to the Tribunal with the aforementioned • ' directions and observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. N. J. Appeal partly allowed.