Vehicles on road are ever increasing and so does accidents !! Motor
Insurance and liability arising out of use of motor vehicles in public place is
well defined - there are Tribunals [Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT)]
wherein victims or their heirs can file claiming compensation in a simplified
process.
Sadly, the petition itself is a gory explanation of pain and
suffering – sordid tale of how lives get changed by that momentary madness of
any accident. In the cited instance, the deceased was 39 years old,
employed with FCI passed away in a road accident. The MACT
held the owner of the truck, the insurer and the driver were jointly and
severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. The
Tribunal passed an award of a sum of Rs. 12,90,000/- in favour of the claimants
recoverable @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its
realization from the respondents jointly and severally.
The issue here was the income of the deceased – being a
salaried person, the monthly salary could be established – and by way of salary
certificate – it was claimed to be Rs.8848/- per month. The amount
of salary was not questioned. The Tribunal
passed the award on the basis of the salary, but did not consider his Income
tax returns that showed an income of Rs.2,42,606/- per annum for the assessment
year 2004-05. The Tribunal held that the claimants had not led any
evidence to explain the contradictions between the two figures of income emerging
from the evidence of the employer of the deceased and the income tax record,
and passed the award relying on the salary certificate issued by the employer
of the deceased.
In a revision carried to the High Court by the Insurance
Company and appeal by the claimants, the High Court took the income of the
deceased as found in the income tax assessment and provided for 50% increase as
future prospect. The High Court applied the lower multiplier of 15 instead of
16 and after making a deduction of 1/4th for the personal expenses, increased
the compensation to Rs. 44,03,980/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition.
Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company approached the
Supreme Court contending that the High Court error by taking into account the
income of the deceased as per the income tax returns. The Two-Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is no
doubt that if the salary certificate is taken into account the
salary of the deceased should be taken as Rs.1,06,176/- since the gross salary
was Rs.8848 per month. That, however, in our view does not mean that the income
of the deceased as stated in the Income Tax return should not be considered. The
claimants had led reliable evidence that the deceased had returned an income of
Rs. 2,42,606/- for the assessment year 2004-05. This piece of evidence has not
been discredited. Indeed, it was possible that the deceased had income from
other sources also. There is nothing in the law which requires the
Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the basis of a salary
certificate for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the
claimants for the loss of life. The Bench stated that – ‘we see no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The SLPs are accordingly
dismissed’. (SLP Nos. 7104-7105 of 2016 - United India
Insurance Vs Indiro Devi).. before
you wonder on its impact, here is something interesting decided by the Tribunal
at Puducherry.
In Sept 2015, a final year B.Tech student died in a road
accident while driving a two-wheeler, in a collision with a truck. He
had been selected and recruited in a campus interview – the job agreement to be
effective July 2016 proposed remuneration of 6.30 lakhs. The
owner and driver of the truck remained absent and set ex-parte. The
Tribunal held the truck to be negligent of rash driving and observed from
post-mortem report that the victim died of head injuries. The
deceased was not wearing a helmet and held that the victim contributed 15% of
negligence. They cited judgment reported in 2017(1) TN MAC 423 which
held that as drier was not found wearing helmet as mandated by Sec 128 &
129 of Motor Vehicle Act, 15% contributory negligence to be fixed on deceased. The
Court held that R1 – R3 (driver, owner and Insurer of truck) were jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
The age of the deceased, relationship of petitioner were
proved. To prove that deceased was a brilliant student, mark sheets
were filed before Court so also the offer of employment and remuneration. The
Tribunal accepted the same; added 40% future prospects, deducted Income tax @
10% slab, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and applied multiplier @ 18 as
per Sarla Verma case. Tribunal further awarded loss of love & affection at
Rs.25000 each; 15000 for funeral expenses and 15000 for loss of estate – after
deducting 15% for not wearing helmet – awarded Rs.63,32,000/-
In this case, the Court has adopted an income which was
yet to be earned and there could perhaps be some vagaries which could impact it
becoming real – and whether this income can be viewed as ‘speculative’ is the Q. However,
the job offer is irrefutable and the deceased had a job at hand upon completion
of his education – and this being a well documented income, there was
possibility of adopting future benefits at 50% too. .. .. though the verdict
seems to be disciplined and process-oriented, it goes against the Insurer, who
is called upon to pay for every logic and burdened always.
There are learnings from every new aspect and every new
angle !
With regards – S. Sampathkumar
15th Nov. 2o18.
No comments:
Post a Comment