REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.            OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15368 of 2006)

Anita Devi and Ors. .......Appellants

Versus

Satyendra Narain Singh and Ors.  .......Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  order  passed  by  a

Division  Bench  of  the  Jharkhand  High  Court,  Ranchi

dismissing  the  Miscellaneous  application  filed  by  the

appellants under  Section 173(1)   of  the Motor Vehicles  Act,

1988 (in short the ‘Act’).  

3. Case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is as follows:

Pramod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’)

died  in  a  vehicular  accident  in  which  Maruti  Van  bearing

registration No.ER-14P-4320 was involved.   The Maruti  Van

was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently.

Initially, Pramod Kumar had sustained grievous injuries. He

was first taken to the Government Hospital from which he was

referred to Bokaro General Hospital where he had expired on

18.4.2000.  The deceased was 37 years of age. The petition for

compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Act was filed by

the dependants of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal  (in  short  the  ‘MACT’)  on  consideration  of  the

materials placed before it  held that claimants are entitled to

2

compensation  of  Rs.1,39,808/-.  Since  the  vehicle  was  the

subject matter of insurance, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurer’) was held liable for the

compensation amount to the claimants alongwith interest @

9% per annum from the date of filing of the application. It was

found that there is no concrete material regarding the income

of the deceased.  However, it was held that notional income of

Rs.15,000/-  p.a.  can  be  taken  after  deducting  certain

amounts  for  personal  use.  The  contribution  was  fixed  at

Rs.10,216/-  p.a.   The  multiplier  of  13  was  applied  and

Rs.5,000/- was also granted for loss of expectation of life and

Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses.  An appeal was preferred by

the claimants questioning correctness of the award, taking the

stand  that  the  quantum  fixed  was  very  low.  High  Court

dismissed the appeal  holding that there was no evidence of

earning income.  

4. In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  submitted  that  several  documents  were  filed  to

3

establish  the  income  of  the  deceased.  This  aspect  was  not

taken note of either by the MACT or the High Court.   

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

appellants  did  not  produce  any  definite  material  regarding

income  and  the  MACT  was  justified  in  taking  the  notional

income.  

6. To test the correctness of the stand of the appellants that

several  documents were filed to establish the income of the

deceased, the original records from MACT were called for.  It

appears from the records that certain documents have been

filed.  It  is  true  that  there  are  no  copies  of  the  income  tax

return or the assessment order. But the documents on record

can certainly throw light on the income aspect.  

7. Above being the position, we set aside the award of the

MACT as affirmed by the High Court and remit the matter to

MACT  to  consider  the  matter  relating  to  income  of  the

4

deceased and determine the compensation afresh taking into

account the documents already on record.  

8. The  appeal  is  allowed  in  the  aforesaid  extent  with  no

order as to costs.  

……………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………..…….J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, July 10, 2008   

5