REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        395            OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13776 of 2007  

Managing Director, TNSTC ..Appellant

Versus

Suguna 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 learned Single

Judge  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the

claimants-respondents. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 19.3.1998 a bus owned by the appellant-corporation was plying

between Erode to Mysore via Nanjangud. At about 8.15 p.m. one Jayasheela

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘deceased’)  who  was  driving  two  wheeler

sustained injuries, because the bus dashed against the deceased who died on

the spot. Respondent No.1 the widow of the deceased and his two minor

children filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation in terms of Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’). Appellant filed its

objections denying the liability and took the stand that the accident occurred

because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The first Additional

Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mysore (in

short  the  ‘MACT’)  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.1,83,500/-  as  compensation

alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing the Claim Petition.  

Questioning quantum of the compensation, respondents Nos.1, 2 and

3 filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court fixed the quantum

at  Rs.4,05,500/-  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  6% as  was  directed  by  the

MACT.  

2

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that no basis

has been indicated for  awarding the compensation.  By a practically non-

reasoned order, appeal has been disposed of.

4. Learned counsel  for  the respondents,  on  the  other  hand,  submitted

that though the judgment is not very elaborate, yet the basis can be found

out  from the  impugned  order.  In  the  normal  course  in  a  case  where  an

appeal has been disposed of by a practically non reasoned order, the matter

is remitted for fresh consideration. But considering the passage of time and

the limited nature of the controversy with the assistance of learned counsel

for the parties, we have gone through the records. The accident took place

on 19.3.1998. The deceased according to the post mortem report was aged

about  24  years.  Though  it  was  claimed  that  he  was  getting  salary  of

Rs.2,500/- p.m., there was no evidence adduced to substantiate the claim.

The  MACT  noticed  that  no  evidence  was  adduced  to  substantiate  the

income and, therefore, notional income of Rs.1,500/- p.m. was fixed. One-

third was deducted for personal expenses. The High Court did not indicate

any reason to fix the income at Rs.2,500/- p.m. though it deducted one-third

for personal expenses.  

3

5. In the aforesaid background, the amount of compensation is fixed at

Rs.3 lacs to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing

of claim application. While working out the interest payable the amounts

already paid shall be duly taken note of and the interest would be calculated

on the balance amount payable.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.      

………………..…………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…..………………….………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 23, 2009

4