NINGAMMA & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 683

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Case summary

NINGAMMA & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 8 S. C. R. 683 ... ,. NINGAMMA & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 2009) MAY 13, 2009 8 [S. B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ. ] ,-) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 147, 163A, 166 - Compensation - Whether the legal representatives of a person who was driving a borrowed Motor Vehicle and met with an accident without involving any other vehicle would be entitled to compensation - Held: A party should not be deprived from getting just compensation in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any " provision of law - Whether or not the claimants would be governed by the terms and conditions of insurance policy, whether s.

147 would be applicable and whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased are matters of fact required to be answered at/east by the High Court - All the said issues being purely questions of fact, matter remanded to the High Court - Question of _,, compensation having regard to earning capacity to be -i decided by High Court - Since the claim is a very old claim, High Court to consider the matter as expeditiously as possible. Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2004) 5 SCC 385; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ~ v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors. , (2009) 2 SCC 417; Raj Rani & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. , [C. A. Nos. 3317- 3318 of 2009 decided by S. C. on 06. 05. 2009] and Nagappa v. Gurudaya/ & Ors. , (2003) 2 SCC 274, referred to.

Case Law Reference: (2004) 5 sec 385 referred to Para 15 (2001) 5 sec 428 referred to Para 15 (2008) 5 sec 736 referred to Para 17 (2009) 2 sec 417 referred to Para 17 ~·' (2003) 2 sec 214 referred to Para 23 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 19. 11. 2007 of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Review Petition No. 337 of 2007 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4152 of 2005. )' WITH C. A. No. 3540 of 2009. Shekhar G. Oevasa, B. V. Pinto, Rohit Pandey (for V. N. Raghupathy) for the Appellant. K. l.. Nandwani (for Debasis Misra) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by )'- DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and involve similar questions of law, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The present appeals arise out of a motor accident claim. The claimant no.

1 and 2 are the wife and ·son ~ respectively of the deceased-Ramappa. On 09. 09. 2000, the deceased was traveling on Hero Honda Motor Cycle, which he borrowed from its real owner for going from llkal to his native place Gudur. When the said motor cycle was proceeding on CO. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. ] .. '), llkal-Kustagl, National Highway, a bullock cart pro~eeding ahead of the said motor cycle carrying iron-sheet suddenly stopped and consequently deceased-Ramappa who was proceeding on the said motor cycle dashed against it. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, he sustained fatal injuries over his vital part of body and on the way to Govt. Hospital, llkal, he died. The doctor of the general hospital, llkal conducted post _,--'! '. mortem examination over dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to the injury to his liver.

The aforesaid motor cycle in which the deceased was traveling at the time of accident was insured with the Insurance Company, namely, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said motor cycle was owned by one Paranagouda. / .. 4. On 04. 10. 2000 Appellant No. 1, the wife of the deceased and Appellant No. 2 - minor son of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the MVA') before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VI, Bijapur, Karnataka (in short 'the Tribunal') being M. V. C. No. 896/2000 praying for compensation Eof Rs. 8, 10,000/- along with future interest etc. on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased was a healthy person, j aged about 32 years and engaged in agriculture, earning Rs. _, 5,000/- per month and was the sole earning member in their family. 5. The Tribunal received evidence and tested the claim.

The Tribunal held that in absence of definite and cogent proof of income, the income of the deceased was to be considered as Rs. 60/- per day as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased -1- was ascertained as Rs. 1,800/- and yearly income as Rs. 21,600/- from which 1/3 was to be deducted leaving thereby Rs. 14,400/- as the net income of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased was found to be in between 30 to 35 years, the relevant multiplier to be applied was '17'. ·. - r specified in the Second Schedule appended to the MVA are stricto sensu not applicable in a case under Section 166 of the MVA, it is not of much dispute that wherever the court has to apply the appropriate multiplier having regard to several factors in mind. The Court has placed reliance 'on earlier judgment of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal & Ors. , (2003) 2 SCC 274, wherein it was observed as follows in para 7: "7.

Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, • ,~ 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no < restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/ court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is - it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, v fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily CO. LTD. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. ] --;, injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles.

or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or • both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may "-~ be. Under the proviso to sub-section (1 ), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. The other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that "the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act''.

Hence, the "· Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed. " 24. There are indeed cases like New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 417, wherein, the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, " who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party. In -<. the said case the court held that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be applicable. 25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "Just Compensation" and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "Just Compensation" in case the claimant is able to make out a case ~) under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is -beneficial and welfare legislation.

In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award "Just Compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant ~~ or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA • would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court. ;- . 26. While entertaining the appeal, no effort was made by the High Court to deal with the aforesaid issues, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present case should be remanded back to the High Court to give its decision on the aforesaid issues.

The High Court was required to consider the aforesaid issues even if it found that the provision of Section 163-A of MVA was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since all the aforesaid issues are purely questions of fact, we do not propose to deal "' with these issues and we send the matter back to the High Court for dealing with the said issues and to render its decision in accordance with law. The High Court will also consider the question of quantum of compensation, if any, to which the claimants might be entitled to, having regard to the earning ... capacity of th~ deceased and "Just Compensation", if any. Since the claim is a very old claim, we request the High Court • to consider the matter as expeditiously as possible. ;. 22. In terms of the aforesaid order, we remand back both ' the matters to the High Court to dispose of the same. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. G. N. Appeals disposed of.