2025 INSC 293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJAY KAROL, J. AND HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.)
PRABHAVATHI
Petitioner
VERSUS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE
Respondent
Civil
Appeal Nos. 3465-3466 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.21450-21451 of 2023)-Decided
on 28-02-2025
Compensation,
MACT
(A)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – MACT – Contributory negligence – Held that the Tribunal
rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3
Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence
on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on
the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1,
held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the
offending vehicle - Contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of
the deceased held to be erroneous- In the absence of any direct or corroborative
evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles - In the present case,
therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for
having driven at high speed.
(Para 10 and 11)
(B)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – MACT – Salary income - Held that in
compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not
apply - Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of
probability - High Court was not justified in assessing the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.50,000/-, as this amount is relatively low, particularly in
the background of the fact that the accident occurred on 6th June, 2016 and the
Tribunal has evidently recorded that the last drawn salary of the deceased as
per Pay Slip (Ex.P.16) to be Rs.62,725/- per month - Findings of the Tribunal
assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.62,725/- per month affirmed - Compensation
now payable to the claimant-appellant is recalculated and enhance to Rs.1,20,84,925/-
from Rs.77,50,000/- as awarded by the High Court along with interest @ 9% per
annum as awarded by the Tribunal.
(Para
12 to 16)
ORDER
|
Time
taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT |
Time
taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court |
Time
taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court |
|
1
year 2 months |
2
years 10 months |
1
year 11 months |
2.
The present appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 1st
October 2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA No.4016 of 2018 by the High
Court of Kar- nataka at Bengaluru, which in turn, was preferred against the
judgment and order dated 12th December 2017 in M.V.C No. 3858/2016 passed by
the IX Additional Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7).
3.
The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 6th June 2016 the
deceased, namely, Boobalan, aged 38 years, was travelling on his motorcycle
from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala. The driver of the
BMTC Bus (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. KA-01/F-9555
collided with the de- ceased, driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, re- sulting in his death on the spot due to the grievous injuries sus-
tained.
4.
The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, submitting therein that the
deceased was the only earning member of the family, working as an Executive in the
Housekeeping Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Old Air- port Road, Bengaluru;
and earning upto Rs.70,000/- per month.
5.
The Tribunal, by its Order dated 12th December 2017, after considering the last
drawn salary of the deceased as Rs.62,725/- per month, awarded the Appellants
an amount of Rs.75,97,060/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and held that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the BMTC
Bus.
6.
Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, both parties filed an
appeal before the High Court. The appellant challenged the same on the ground
that the Tribunal incorrectly determined the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.62,725/- per month, whereas the proven income as
per the bank statement (Ex. P.21) should be assessed at Rs.70,000/- per month.
On the other hand, the respondent challenged the assessment on the ground that
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus; instead of
considering the notional income wrongly considered the income to the tune of
Rs.62,725/- as the deceased was not a
permanent employee and the interest @ 9% was excessive.
7.
The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 1st October 2020, allowed the
appeal and determined the contributory negligence at 75% on the driver of the
bus and 25% on the deceased by relying upon the statements and documentary
evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver of the
offending vehicle as both were driving at high speed and further assessed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded an enhanced
amount of Rs.77,50,000/- @ 6% interest per annum.
8.
Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant is now before us. The significant
point raised by the appellant is that the High Court wrongly assessed
contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25%.
9.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25%
contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We
find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue.
The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal
of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any
sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the ac- cident occurred due to
negligent driving on the part of the de- ceased, and after considering the oral
evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on
the part only of the offending vehicle.
11.
Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High
Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid
down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kun- jujamma Mohan[(2013)
9 SCC 166] , where it was held that in the absence of any direct or
corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This
exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and
Ors. [(2015) 1 SCC
339]. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter,
it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.
12.
Another point to be considered was that the claimants- appellants approached
the High Court seeking an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
stating therein that the deceased was earning Rs.70,000/-
per month working as an Executive Housekeeper at Hotel Royal Orchid, whereas
the High Court assessed the income as Rs.50,000/- per month.
13.
It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is
established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in
criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the
preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC[(2020) 13 SCC 468] observed that:
“22. It is thus well
settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely,
the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the
Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the
accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor
vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the
pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor
vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”
The exposition came to
be reiterated in Rajwati alias Ra- jjo & Ors. v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2022
SCC OnLine SC 1699], wherein it was observed that :
“20. It is well
settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of
legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual
occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be
to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court
in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as
applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident
compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the standard of proof to be borne in mind
must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof
beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases”.
14.
In our considered view, the High Court was not justified in assessing the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/-, as this
amount is relatively low, particularly in the background of the fact that the
accident occurred on 6th June, 2016 and the Tribunal has evidently recorded
that the last drawn salary of the deceased as per Pay Slip (Ex.P.16) to be
Rs.62,725/- per month. Therefore, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal
assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.62,725/-
per month.
15.
As a result of the discussion above, the compensation now payable to the
claimant-appellant is recalculated as fol- lows:
CALCULATION
OF COMPENSATION
|
S.No. |
Compensation
Heads |
Amount
Awarded |
In
Accordance with: |
|
1. |
Monthly
Income |
Rs.62,725/- |
National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 42, 52 & 59 |
|
2. |
Yearly
Income |
Rs.7,52,700/- |
|
|
3. |
Future
Prospects (40%) (Age being 38) |
7,52,700
+ 3,01,080 = Rs.10,53,780/- |
|
|
4. |
Deduction
(1/4) |
7,52,700
–2,63,445 =
Rs.7,90,335/- |
|
|
5. |
Multiplier
(13) |
7,90,335
X 15= Rs.1,18,55,025/- |
|
|
6. |
Loss
of Estate |
Rs.18,150/- |
|
|
7. |
Loss
of Funeral Expenses |
Rs.18,150/- |
|
|
8. |
Loss
of Consortium |
48,400
X 4 =
Rs.1,93,600/- |
|
|
|
Total |
Rs.1,20,84,925/- |
|
Thus, the difference
in compensation is as under :
|
MACT
|
High
Court |
This
Court |
|
Rs.75,97,060/-
|
Rs.77,50,000/-
|
Rs.1,20,84,925/- |
16.
The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned Award dated
12th December, 2017 in M.V.C.No. 3858/2016 passed by IX Additional Small Causes
and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7), as modified by the High Court vide the
impugned order dated 1st October, 2020, passed in MFA No.2162 of 2018 C/W MFA
No.4016 of 2018, stands modified accordingly. Interest is to be paid as awarded
by the Tribunal.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------