Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on March 6, 2024 said the assessment of compensation cannot be done with mathematical precision and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for assessment of just and fair compensation. 

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal allowed a plea by Vethambal and others, family of deceased Ravisankar, 52, who was killed in a road accident while riding a motorcycle at Tirunelveli.

The family of the deceased -- his old mother, wife, daughter and son -- sought a compensation of Rs one crore on the ground that the deceased was doing multiple activities. Besides being an agriculturist growing bananas, coconuts and paddy, he was also running a dairy farm and working as a government contractor. He was the sole bread earner of the family.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of over Rs 51.64 lakh with interest 8 % per annum.

Upon an appeal by the Insurance Company, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs 22.48 lakh.

The appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and fair as the deceased was doing multiple works, he was supplying milk and coconut to a school, also growing paddy, seling bananas grown on land owned by him.

However, the Insurance Company, with a view to rubbing salt on the wounds, challenged the reasonable compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Sole earning member of the family had died leaving behind four dependants. Value of the life cannot be assessed but whatever meagre amount the Tribunal awarded, the appellants felt satisfied, their counsel submitted.

The Insurance Company's counsel contended it is a case where unimaginable claims were made. He said the High Court had taken a reasonable view as compensation to be awarded to the dependants of a deceased has to be just and reasonable and not the kind of bonanza. 

The land on which bananas were being grown is still there and is being used by the family for growing it, hence there is no loss of income on that account. There is no clinching evidence on record to show that the deceased was working as a Government contractor regularly and the income was being generated therefrom. Total receipts from supply of milk and coconuts to the school cannot besaid to be the income, the company said.

"From the material placed on record, it is evident that besides generating income from the land owned by the family in the form of sale of paddy and bananas, the deceased was also having income from supply of milk and coconuts to the school. There is also material available on record to show that he worked as a Government contractor. Meaning thereby, to make the lives of his family members comfortable, the deceased was multi-tasking and he was not engaged in a 9.00 to 5.00 PM job," the bench said.

The bench said though the entire amount received by the deceased from the school on account of supply of milk and coconuts cannot be said to be his income but it proves that he was engaged in this business.   

The court also noted the appellants claimed that the deceased was the only person in the family who was taking care of the land. On account of the death of the deceased, the income from the land must have been reduced as the land was not being cultivated as per the village development officer.

"In our opinion, considering the material placed on record by the appellants, and value of the labour being put in by the deceased in agriculture, it would be reasonable to assess his income at Rs 35,000 per month," the bench said.  

Relying upon the Supreme Court's judgement in 'Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another' (2009) approved by this court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi and others' (2017), the court enhanced the compensation to Rs 38.51 lakh with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing petition till realisation.