MANASVI JAIN Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: UTTARAKHAND)
Decided on
April 23,2014
Manasvi Jain
Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. URMILA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-28] [REFERRED TO]RADHIKA DEVI VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD DARUKA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-214] [REFERRED TO]
MANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS VS. JASSA SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. E. ALLI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-126] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA W/O ARUN MEMANE VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DEVI YADAV AND OTHERS VS. SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. RAJ RANI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. VS. FRIENDS TRANSPORT COMPANY AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-575] [REFERRED TO]
MONIKA AND ORS. VS. RAJENDER KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-538] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA RAI VS. RAMAYAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2017-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-235] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. VANLALRUATFELI [LAWS(GAU)-2019-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA SHARMA VS. KARAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-424] [REFERRED TO]
MEESALA NAGESWARAMMA VS. SIVA CHEEDERLA [LAWS(APH)-2014-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHRIDHAR SHRIPAD KARANDIKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-104] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SMT. NISHA DUBEY AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. ANITA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-190] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SOUMYA.V.S [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-294] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MONIKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-304] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY / MANAGER VS. REKHA WD/O RAHUL SHIRSATH [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMILA DEVI VS. RAM BALI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-348] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. VS. CHARU NAHTA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SUNITA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. RANJANA KUSHWAHA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA SHARMA VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRIYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-2-209] [REFERRED TO]
SADHNA PANDEY & ORS VS. SHYAM SUNDER DHANKA & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA AND ORS. VS. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. MOTI LAL VERMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR JAHAN VS. SANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-569] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. VS. VENNILA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
PHILEMON LALTHAZUALA AND ORS. VS. RAMHLUNSANGA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-263] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. FARZANA RAHAT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-173] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS. SYEEDA FARHATUNNISA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
N.V.RAMANA, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal by special leave arises out of the Judgment and order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a Motor
Accidents Claims Appeal No. 484 of 2006.
(2.)THE appellant -claimant is the son of deceased Suresh Chandra Jain who died in a road accident. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.36,00,000/ - on the basis that the deceased who was aged 55 years on the date of accident, was working as Executive Engineer with the Public Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was earning a salary of Rs.26,950/ - per month.
The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record and also the evidence of one eyewitness to the accident, namely, Ajay Bansal (PW 2), came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver -Respondent No. 2 and as such, the appellant is entitled for compensation. According to the original salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, the gross salary of the deceased was found to be Rs.26,950/ - and after various deductions towards GPF, House Rent, GIS and Income Tax, the take home salary was determined as Rs.15,784/ - p.m. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was 55 years old, as evidenced by the documentary evidence, applied the multiplier 8. Thus, taking into consideration his age and monthly salary at Rs.15,784/ -, the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.10,10,176/ - (2/3rd of Rs.15,784 x 12 x 8). In addition to that Rs.5,000/ - was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/ - towards mental agony and finally awarded Rs.10,25,176/ - as compensation with interest payable @ 5% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal also fastened the liability of making payment of compensation on the Delhi Transport Corporation -Respondent No. 1 as the bus which caused accident belongs to them.
(3.)AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, both Delhi Transport Corporation as well as the appellant herein have filed their respective appeals before the High Court. The Delhi Transport Corporation pleaded that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability of making payment of compensation lies on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the appellant 's appeal was for enhancement of compensation.
(2.)THE appellant -claimant is the son of deceased Suresh Chandra Jain who died in a road accident. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Dehradun seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.36,00,000/ - on the basis that the deceased who was aged 55 years on the date of accident, was working as Executive Engineer with the Public Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand and was earning a salary of Rs.26,950/ - per month.
The Tribunal, after taking into account the evidence on record and also the evidence of one eyewitness to the accident, namely, Ajay Bansal (PW 2), came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver -Respondent No. 2 and as such, the appellant is entitled for compensation. According to the original salary certificate of the deceased issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, the gross salary of the deceased was found to be Rs.26,950/ - and after various deductions towards GPF, House Rent, GIS and Income Tax, the take home salary was determined as Rs.15,784/ - p.m. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was 55 years old, as evidenced by the documentary evidence, applied the multiplier 8. Thus, taking into consideration his age and monthly salary at Rs.15,784/ -, the Tribunal calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.10,10,176/ - (2/3rd of Rs.15,784 x 12 x 8). In addition to that Rs.5,000/ - was granted towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/ - towards mental agony and finally awarded Rs.10,25,176/ - as compensation with interest payable @ 5% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal also fastened the liability of making payment of compensation on the Delhi Transport Corporation -Respondent No. 1 as the bus which caused accident belongs to them.
(3.)AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, both Delhi Transport Corporation as well as the appellant herein have filed their respective appeals before the High Court. The Delhi Transport Corporation pleaded that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability of making payment of compensation lies on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the appellant 's appeal was for enhancement of compensation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.