Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 9194 of 2016, Judgment Date: Sep 16, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9194  OF 2016
                   (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1448 of 2014)


SANDHYA RANI DEBBARMA & ORS.                           …APPELLANTS

                                  Versus

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR.                                  … RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

   Leave granted.

 The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 2824  days  against  the
impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 passed by  the  learned  single
judge of the High Court of Tripura  at Agartala in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.
113 of 2006. The Writ Appeal preferred by the appellants  against  the  same
before the Division Bench of the High Court, came to  be  dismissed  as  not
maintainable vide  judgment  and  order  dated  22.08.2013.  The  appellants
herein filed an SLP challenging the same. Vide order dated 05.05.2014,  this
Court directed the appellants  to  amend  the  Special  Leave  Petition  and
impugn the judgment and order of the learned single judge  as  well.  Having
regard to the fact that  the  delay  was  caused  only  on  account  of  the
appellants pursuing the remedy of filing a Writ Appeal before  the  Division
Bench of the High Court, as well as  the  fact  that  claim  is  made  under
Section 166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988,  which  is  a  beneficial
legislation, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay  in  filing  the
Special Leave Petition. Hence, delay is condoned.

  The necessary relevant  facts  required  to  appreciate  the  rival  legal
contentions  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  parties  are  stated  in   brief
hereunder:

    On 14.11.2003, the  deceased,  while  travelling  in  a  vehicle  (Jeep)
bearing No. TR013476 met  with  an  accident  at  Assam-Agartala  Road  near
Banukumari, at Baramur due to collision with a  Bus  bearing  No.  TR01-1212
coming from opposite direction.  He  was  taken  to  the  nearby  Government
Hospital namely, GBP Hospital,  Agartala  where  he  was  declared  ‘brought
dead’. Jirama P.S. Case No. 90 of 2003 was registered on the very  same  day
under Sections 270, 338 and 304A  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”).

  The appellants herein (being  the  legal  heirs  of  the  deceased)  filed
Title Suit  (M.S.C.)  No.  1  of  2004  before  the  Motor  Accident  Claims
Tribunal,  West  Tripura,  Agartala  (hereinafter  referred   to   as   “the
Tribunal”) claiming a total compensation  amounting  to  Rs.33,45,000/-.  It
was submitted that the deceased was survived by his parents,  wife  and  two
minor children. On the day of the accident, his  age  was  31  years  and  4
months.  He was working as Junior Engineer (Grade-I)  under  the  Government
of Tripura and drawing monthly salary of Rs.13,504.50/-, without  imposition
of income tax, as per the statutory exemption in the state of  Tripura  from
paying income tax to the members of Scheduled Tribes. The owner of the  jeep
and its insurer-National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as the owner of  the
Bus and the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.  were  made  parties  to
the claim.

  The Tribunal by way of judgment and award dated 14.12.2005 held  that  the
age of the  deceased  being  31  years  at  the  time  of  the  accident,  a
multiplier of 17 would be applicable and awarded as under:


|Head under which awarded       |Amount                      |
|Loss of dependency             |32,32,000/-                 |
|Funeral expenses               |2,000/-                     |
|Loss of consortium             |25,000/-                    |
|Loss of estate                 |2,500/-                     |
|Total                          |32,52,700/-                 |

The Tribunal further ordered that the insurer of both the vehicles  involved
in the accident, that is, the bus and the jeep were equally  liable  to  pay
the compensation. Thus, the National  Insurance  Co.  Ltd  (insurer  of  the
jeep) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the bus) were  ordered
to pay a sum of Rs.16,26,350/-  each, along with 6% interest per annum  from
the date of filing of the claim petition to the appellants. It  was  further
ordered by the Tribunal that the payment had to be paid within a  period  of
two months from the  date  of  receipt  of  the  award,  failing  which  the
interest would be payable at the rate of 9% per annum.

  Aggrieved  by  the  said  Award  passed  by  the  Tribunal,  the  National
Insurance Company Ltd. challenged the Award by filing Writ Petition No.  113
of 2006 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India  before  the
learned single Judge of Gauhati High Court. The  other  insurer-Company  did
not prefer any appeal.

  The learned single judge of the High Court, by way of judgment  and  order
dated 17.05.2006 allowed the writ petition and modified the Award passed  by
the Tribunal by reducing the amount from  Rs.32,52,700/-  to  Rs.20,40,000/-
only. The learned single judge, held as under:
“4. But the finer question of law is where none  of  the  grounds  permitted
under Section 149(2) of the act has been taken as ground for the purpose  of
approaching this Court under  Article  227  for  setting  at  right  alleged
perversity, gross infirmity  and  infraction  of  settled  legal  principles
which constitute parameter of the Tribunal,  whether  plenary  powers  of  a
writ court can  be  kept  at  bay  in  the  name  of  the  restrictions  and
limitations imposed by section 149(9) of the act.”

On the issue of calculation of the compensation amount, the  learned  single
judge observed:
“8. In the case on hand, the  average  monthly  gross  income  after  double
advancement was assessed at Rs. 16,750/- from which  only  Rs.  1,000/-  was
deducted for taxes, self-maintenance and pleasure of the deceased  which  in
my view  is  a  gross  perversity  because  of  its  fanciful  subjectivity,
irrationality in total disregard of the ratio noticed above. It  amounts  to
stepping out of its parameters by the Tribunal.”

The learned single judge further went on to hold:
“13. It is thus clear  that  where  on  the  face  of  it,  an  award  is  a
perversity due to gross non-observation of the settled  legal  principle  in
determining the just amount  of  compensation,  it  can  be  said  that  the
Tribunal has not acted within its parameters  calling  for  interference  by
the High Court in exercise of its plenary supervisory powers”

  Aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No.  38  of  2006  before  the
High Court of Tripura, Agartala.  The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court
dismissed the Writ Appeal as not maintainable vide judgment and order  dated
22.08.2013 holding that the order passed by the  learned  single  Judge  was
under Article 227 and not under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,
and thus, the same was not amenable to being challenged by  way  of  a  Writ
Appeal. The Division Bench held as under:
“An appeal is the creation of a statute and if the Single Judge has  clearly
mentioned that he is exercising powers under article 227  against  which  no
appeal lies, then the mere fact that the petitioner  had  also  invoked  the
provisions of Article 226 would not be sufficient to  hold  that  an  appeal
would lie against such an order. The law is well settled  that  what  cannot
be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done in an indirect manner………”

Hence, the present appeal.

  Mr. Bijan  Kumar  Ghosh,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the
appellants submits that the learned single judge of the High  Court  grossly
erred in entertaining the writ  petition  filed  by  the  insurance  company
against the award  passed  by  the  Tribunal.  The  learned  counsel  places
reliance on the decision of a Three Judge Bench of this Court  in  the  case
of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[1], wherein it has been  held
that a writ petition  under  Article  227  of  the  Constitution  of  India,
challenging the award of the Tribunal  in  a  motor  accident  case  is  not
maintainable. It is further contended that it  was  not  open  to  the  High
Court to enlarge the grounds of appeal which have been provided for  in  the
statute to the insurer in  cases  of  motor  accidents.  Thus,  the  learned
counsel prays that the award passed by the Tribunal  be  restored  and  that
the compensation be awarded to the appellants at the  interest  rate  of  9%
per annum.

On the other hand, Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing  on  behalf  of
the respondent-Insurance Company submits  that  the  impugned  judgment  and
orders suffer from no infirmity in law. It is submitted that the  award  was
passed by the Tribunal in complete ignorance of the decisions of this  Court
in the cases of G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas[2], Sarla Verma  &  Ors.
v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.[3]  as well as  T.N.  State  Transport
Corpn. Ltd. v.  S.  Rajapriya[4]   The  learned  counsel  submits  that  the
monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,020/- at the time of the  accident,
which was wrongly taken as Rs.13,500/-.  The  Tribunal  further  arbitrarily
arrived at the figure of Rs.16,750/- per month as the monthly salary of  the
deceased. Thus, the award of compensation of Rs.32,52,700/-  arrived  at  by
the Tribunal was definitely on the higher side. Thus,  the  learned  counsel
contends that the learned single  Judge  has  rightly  interfered  with  the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
 We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the  parties  and
have perused the evidence and materials placed on record,  as  well  as  the
impugned judgments and orders passed by both the learned  single  judge  and
the Division Bench of the High Court.

At the outset, we make it clear that we  are  dealing  with  the  matter  on
merits, without going into the  question  of  maintainability  of  the  writ
petition filed by the insurance company before the single judge of the  High
Court, questioning the correctness of the quantum  of  compensation  awarded
by the Tribunal.

The date of birth of the deceased as shown on the admit card of the  Tripura
Board of Secondary  Education  was  03.07.1972.  The  accident  occurred  on
14.11.2003. Thus, the age of the deceased at the time of  the  accident  was
31 years and 4 months. Thus, the appropriate multiplier in the instant  case
is 17. On the issue of the salary  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  the
accident, the learned single judge proceeds on the assumption  that  it  was
Rs.10,020/- on the ground that the same was  the  amount  mentioned  in  the
claim petition. Thus, we proceed on the basis that  the  monthly  income  of
the deceased at the time  of  the  accident  was  Rs.10,020/-.  Further,  in
accordance with the principle of law laid down by this Court in the case  of
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Corporation[5], an addition of  50%  must
be made  to  the  actual  salary  income  of  the  deceased  towards  future
prospects in those cases where the deceased had  a  permanent  job  and  was
below 40 years of age at the time of the  accident.  Thus,  in  the  instant
case, 50% of Rs.10,020/- comes to  Rs.5,010/-,  which  if  added  gives  the
income as Rs.15,030/-. In accordance with the principle of law laid down  by
this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport  Corporation
& Anr[6](supra), where the number of dependents of the deceased are  between
4 and 6, 1/4th of the income of the deceased is to be deducted  towards  the
living and personal expenses.  Since  in  the  present  case,  there  are  5
dependents, (wife, two minor children, mother  and  father),  1/4th  of  the
monthly income, that is, Rs.3750/- (rounded off) is to be  deducted  towards
living and personal expenses.

Deducting Rs.3750/- on account of personal and living expenses, the  monthly
income comes to Rs.11,280/-. Since the age of the deceased at  the  time  of
the accident was 31 years and 4 months,  multiplier  of  17  is  applicable.
Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to:
       Rs.11,280/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.23,01,120/-

The High Court arrived  at  the  amount  of               Rs.20,40,000/-  in
complete  and  utter  forgetfulness   of   the   principles   of   computing
compensation laid down by this Court in  catena of  cases,  which  shall  be
referred to in a later part of this judgment.
     What is more shocking is  the  logic  applied  by  the  High  Court  in
modifying the award to           Rs.20,40,000/-, which is  only  the  annual
loss of dependency, thereby, completely missing the  next  crucial  step  in
determining the award of compensation due to the dependents of the  deceased
under the other different heads such as loss of  estate,  funeral  expenses,
loss of consortium etc.  It  is  worth  reproducing  the  reasoning  of  the
learned single judge in not awarding any amount under the other heads:
“19. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, this writ petition  has
merit and the same is allowed modifying the award to Rs.  20,40,000/-  only.
As this amount would fetch perpetually more than Rs. 10,000/- per  month  by
way of interest @ 6% per annum without consuming the  principal  sum  during
the period of dependency, no further award on  any  other  count  is  called
for……”

It is difficult for this Court to understand what is the legal principle  on
which the learned single judge has relied on to  arrive  at  the  conclusion
that no further award under any other head is called for, when the same  has
been the well settled position of law by this Court.

In light of the three judge bench decision of this  Court  in  the  case  of
Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir & Ors.[7] as well as the decision of this  Court  in
the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport  Corporation[8],
the appellants are further entitled  to  compensation  under  the  following
heads:

|Head                           |Amount                          |
|Funeral expenses               |Rs.  25,000/-                   |
|Loss of consortium             |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|Loss of guidance to minor      |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|children                       |                                |
|Loss of love and affection to  |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|aged parents                   |                                |
|Loss of estate                 |Rs.1,00,000/-                   |
|Litigation costs               |Rs.  25,000/-                   |
|Total                          |Rs.4,50,000/-                   |

The appellants are thus, entitled to a total compensation of  Rs.23,01,120/-
+ Rs.4,50,000/- = Rs.27,51,120/-.
This amount is payable by the respondents to the appellants, not at rate  of
6% interest per annum as the learned single judge has held, but at the  rate
of 9% per annum, according to the principle laid down by this Court  in  the
case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi,  Delhi  v.  Uphaar  Tragedy  Victims
Association & Ors[9].

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments and orders  passed  by  the
Division Bench and the learned Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  are  set
aside. Both the insurance companies shall be liable  to  pay  half  a  share
each of the compensation amount of Rs.27,51,120/-, at an  interest  rate  of
9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition  till  the  date  of
realization. The respondent-Insurance companies  are  directed  to  pay  the
amount as awarded in this judgment to the claimants within four  weeks  from
the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order in terms  of  the
apportionment of the compensation made by the Tribunal. No costs.


                                                  ………………………………………………………J.
                                                    (V. GOPALA GOWDA)


                                                  ………………………………………………………J.
                                                   (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016



-----------------------
[1]    (2003) 3 SCC 524
[2]     (1994) 2 SCC 176
[3]     (2009) 6 SCC 121
[4]     (2005) 6 SCC 236
[5]    (2012) 6 SCC 421
[6]    (2009) 6 SCC 121
[7]    (2013) 9 SCC 54
[8]    (2014) 5 SCALE 479
[9]    (2011) 14 SCC 481