| |
CDJ 2026 SC 1121
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7735 of 2025) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Parties : Rekha & Others Versus Dinesh Porwal & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: ----- |
| Date of Judgment : 01-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Indian Penal Code - Section 304A -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors [C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024]
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780
- Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1699
2. Catch Words:
- Compensation
- Motor accident
- Income assessment
- Interest
- Appeal
- Leave granted
3. Summary:
The appellant challenges the High Court’s enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, arguing that the two Income Tax Returns filed after the deceased’s death should have been considered. The Supreme Court notes that the deceased’s profession and available ITRs justify fixing his annual income at Rs. 3,25,000. Applying the principles from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court recalculates the total compensation to Rs. 60,79,550, superseding both the MACT and High Court awards. Interest on the enhanced amount is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. The revised award is to be remitted to the claimants within four weeks. Pending applications, if any, are to be disposed of.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, which, in turn was preferred against the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 155/2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal[Hereinafter 'MACT'.], Mandsaur[Hereinafter 'the Tribunal'.].
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15.06.2015, the deceased namely Krishnavallabh, then aged 28 years, was travelling from Sakhtali to Barkheda, on his motorcycle. On the main road, near Miriyakhedi nai abadi, the offending vehicle bearing registration number MP 43 C 8969, struck the motorcycle at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the injuries suffered, the deceased passed away during treatment.
4. In connection thereof, an FIR came to be registered[Crime No. 255/2015.] under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver being Respondent No. 1 herein.
5. An application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, on behalf of the claimant-appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased. A compensation amount of Rs. 90,25,000/- was claimed. It was stated therein that the deceased was running his own grocery business and had an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Furthermore, he was the sole breadwinner of the family.
6. The Tribunal vide its award dated 20.12.2017 in MACT No. 155/2017 awarded an amount of Rs. 15,36,560/- to the claimant-appellants along with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- on the basis of the net profit from the ITR of the previous year. The Tribunal further awarded compensation towards conventional heads, in accordance with law.
7. Aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The significant ground of challenge taken was that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased, by not considering the average of the previous ITRs filed by him.
8. The High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018, allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation payable by an amount of Rs. 23,04,920/- to a total compensation of Rs. 38,40,850/-. The High Court assessed his monthly income as Rs. 16,750/- per month, on the basis of the average income in his ITRs for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. Two ITRs which were filed after the death of the deceased, were excluded for the purposes of this assessment.
9. Still dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before us. The point of challenge raised is that the High Court has erroneously excluded the two recent ITRs for the purposes of computation of income.
10. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors[C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024.], we proceed to examine the issue at hand.
11. It cannot be disputed that this is a case where the claimant-appellants have filed ITRs for the AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 after the death of the deceased. The annual income has been shown as Rs. 2,35,881/- and Rs. 4,98,671/-, respectively. Whether these figures have been unduly enhanced have to be seen from surrounding financial statements, which this Court does not have the benefit of. At this stage, it also not in the interest of justice for the matter to be remanded.
12. It is a matter of record that the deceased was running his own wholesale grocery store. Considering the ITRs available on record and the nature of his profession, we deem it appropriate to fix the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 3,25,000/-.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the appellants would be recalculated as under:
CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION
| Compensation Heads | Amount Awarded | In Accordance with: | | Yearly Income | Rs.3,25,000/- | | | Future Prospects (40%) (Age being 28) | 3,25,000 + 1,30,000 = Rs.4,55,000/- | National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 | | Deduction (1/4) | 4,55,000 - 1,13,750 = Rs.3,41,250/- | | Multiplier (17) | 3,41,250 x 17 = Rs.58,01,250/- | | Loss of Income of the Deceased | Rs.58,01,250/- | | Loss of Estate | Rs.18,150/-(10% increase)
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 59.8 | | Loss of Funeral Expenses | Rs.18,150/-(10% increase)
| | Loss of Consortium | 48,400 X 5(10% increase) = Rs.2,42,000/-
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 59.8 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1699 Para 34 | | Total | Rs.60,79,550 |
Thus, the difference in compensation is as under:
| MACT | High Court | This Court | | Rs.15,36,560/- | Rs. 38,40,850/- | Rs.60,79,550/- |
14. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned award dated 20.12.2017 passed in MACT Case No. 155/2017 by the MACT, Mandsaur as modified by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1932 of 2018, stands modified accordingly. Interest on the enhanced amount is to be paid, as awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the claimant-appellants. The particulars of the bank account are to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent. The amount be remitted positively within a period of four weeks thereafter.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
