@ Budho Rani Vs. Nidhan Singh @ Kapoor & Ors.  INSC 1337 (31 July
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
4956 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4130 of 2007] Budhwanti @ Budho Rani ...
Appellant VERSUS Nidhan Singh @ Kapoor & Ors. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 4958 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4315 of 2007] Sheela Rani
& Ors. ... Appellants VERSUS Nidhan Singh @ Kapoor & Ors. ...
Khairati Lal (deceased) and the appellants herein were residents
of a village known as Khamano Mandi. On or about 11.03.1998, at 8 a.m., they
were proceeding to another village on a scooter. Kanwar Ram and Ramesh Kumar
were following them on another scooter. One Trala (a 2 goods carrier) struck
the scooter of Khairati Lal near a village known as Pahar Kalan. The said
vehicle was being driven by Shri Nidhan Singh.
result of the said accident, the appellants herein as also Khairati Lal fell
down on the road. Whereas Khairati Lal and the appellant Sheela Rani, wife of
the deceased suffered head injuries, left leg of the appellant Budhwanti was
crushed under the wheels of the vehicle. They were taken to the A.P.Jain
Hospital, Patiala for treatment. Khairati Lal succumbed to his injuries in the
Contending that the said accident had taken place owing to rash
and negligent driving of Nidhan Singh, three claim applications were filed
before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala.
the contentions raised by the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company was that
neither Khairati Lal nor respondent No. 1 Nidhan Singh was holding any valid
The learned Tribunal, having regard to the rival pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues:
Whether Sheela Rani received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of
Trala No. HR 38 6785 being driven by Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so its
Whether Budhwanti also received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of
Trala No. HR 38 6785 being driven by 3 Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so its
Whether Khairati Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of Trala No. HR 38
6785 being driven by Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1? If so its effect? 3A
Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount
and from whom?
Whether Nidhan Singh respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence at
the time of accident?
Whether this claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?"
The learned Tribunal on the basis of the materials brought on
record held issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the claimants opining that Sheela
Rani and Budhwanti Devi , appellants herein had sustained injuries owing to
rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 Nidhan Singh and Khairati
Lal died for the self-same reasons. Issue No.
also decided in favour of the claimants - appellants. Issue No. 5, however, was
Whereas the appellant Sheela Rani was granted compensation for a
sum of Rs. 4,11,000/- on account of death of Khairati Lal, she was awarded a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- in respect of her own injuries. While determining the
amount of compensation of Rs. 4,11,000/- , the learned Tribunal assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/- per month and one -third therefrom was
deducted to arrive at the aforesaid amount. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs. 85,000/- in favour of the appellant 4 Budhwanti on account of permanent
disability suffered by her including disfigurement in the said accident.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, appellants
preferred three separate appeals before the High Court inter alia contending
that the income of Khairati Lal should have been calculated at Rs. 8000/- to
Rs. 10,000/- per month and not at Rs. 4,500/- by the Tribunal.
So far as the injuries suffered by the appellant Sheela Rani are
concerned, it was contended that she had spent an amount of Rs. 1.50 lakh on
her medical treatment and as amount should have been awarded in her favour.
Apart therefrom enhancement of the amount of compensation on other heads was
Budhwanti, whose leg was amputated, also raised a contention that
she had spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Besides the
same, she had also spent towards hire of services of an attendant and would
furthermore be required to incur expenditure of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per
The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment, enhanced the
amount of compensation in respect of death of Khairati Lal to Rs. 5 5,55,000/-
and for injuries suffered by the appellants Sheela Rani and Budhwanti to Rs.
50,000/- and Rs. 1,70,000/- respectively.
Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed by the appellants
It is unfortunate, we must note at the outset, that the High Court
did not assign sufficient or cogent reasons in support of its judgment.
Appellants contend that Khairati Lal was aged about 35 years at
the time of his death. He was running a general merchant shop. He is said to
have been selling shoes also. Although in support of the said plea, income tax
receipts were filed, the learned Tribunal did not place any reliance thereupon.
It was opined that the income of Khairati Lal was Rs. 4500/- per month. The
learned Tribunal, furthermore, held that the age of the deceased in view of the
post mortem report (Exhibit PW.3/A) was 43 years. In the aforementioned
premise, multiplier of 11 was applied.
Court, however, while maintaining the quantum of income of Khairati Lal at Rs.
4500/- per month, applied the multiplier of
The High Court proceeded to apply the multiplicand and the
multiplier with reference to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The Tribunal and the High Court,
however, failed to take into consideration that the multiplier 6 specified in
the Second Schedule appended to the Act may not have any co-relationship with
computation of the quantum of compensation on an application filed under
Section 166 thereof.
however, appears that the deceased Khairati Lal apart from his mother Budhwanti
and wife Sheela Rani had three children, who were minors at the material time.
have not preferred any appeal questioning the correctness of the amount awarded
by the High Court. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court as regards compensation paid owing to the death of
the deceased Khairati Lal as we are of the opinion that the amount of
compensation paid was sufficient having regard to the findings of fact arrived
at by the learned Tribunal as also the High Court.
far as that part of the appeal preferred by the appellant Sheela Rani as
regards compensation paid to her for her injuries and the appeal preferred by
the appellant Budhwanti are concerned, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court
considered the evidences of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants.
Why the amount claimed by the claimants towards expenses for
obtaining medical treatment had been rejected has not been stated. On 7 what
basis the compensation on other heads, viz., pain and suffering expenses,
special diet expenses, expenses on transportation, expenses on attendant,
compensation for disfigurement and social discomfort, etc.
granted is not known. Figures have been arrived at without discussing the
materials on records, without analyzing the evidences and without assigning
sufficient and cogent reasons therefor.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice shall
be met if the claim petitions filed by Sheela Rani and Budhwanti with regard to
the amount of compensation for their personal injuries are remitted to the High
Court for consideration of the matters afresh. We, however, make it clear that
as the respondents herein did not prefer any appeal, the amount of compensation
already granted by the High Court shall not be interfered with and the only question
which would be considered by the High Court is as to whether the claimants for
sustaining injuries on their persons, are entitled to a higher amount of
compensation on the basis of the materials brought on record by the parties.
That part of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4315 of
2007 preferred by Sheela Rani as regards compensation awarded owing to the
death of her husband is dismissed; the other part relating to compensation paid
to her for her injuries is allowed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.
4130 of 2007 preferred by Budhwanti is allowed with the aforementioned
observations and directions. We would, 8 however, request the High Court to
consider the desirability of disposing the matter at an early date and preferably
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
.....................................J. [S.B. Sinha]
.....................................J. [Cyriac Joseph]