Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors (21/10/2022)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more

Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs. Gainda Lal & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No. 7629 of 2022]

DATE: 21/210/2022

ACT: Motor Vehicle Act

JUDGMENTJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022)

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.854 of 2014, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.

2. That the wife of the appellant no.1 died in a vehicular accident. At the relevant timeTime Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”), the deceased was aged 25 years and was a housewife. The Motor Accident ClaimA Claim A claim is “factually unsustainable” where it could be said with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is entirely without substance, which can be the case if it were clear beyond question that the facts pleaded are contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards the compensation under different heads. The Learned Tribunal awarded the loss of dependency at Rs.3,24,000/considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/per month. As at the relevant time the deceased was pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/for foetus. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.19,12,200/under different heads:

2.1 In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation at Rs.29,34,000/under different heads:

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants original claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month only. It is submitted that even the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than Rs.6,000/per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awarding the loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken into consideration at all.

3.1 It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awarding Rs.50,000/towards foetus. It is submitted that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents – Insurance Company has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the deceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6,000/per month. However, has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the loss of dependency considering future prospects.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 that she was also doing the tuition work, we are of the opinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. that the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/per month. The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects.

5.1 We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/as awarded by the High Court for loss of foetus.

5.2 The claimants – husband and the minor son shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000/each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection.

5.3 To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified.

6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is directed that the appellants original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,82,000/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costsCosts Subject to any written law, costs are at the discretion of the Court, and the Court has the power to determine all issues relating to the costs of or incidental to all proceedings, including by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid, at any stage of the proceedings or after the conclusion of the proceedings. Generally “Costs” includes charges, disbursements, expenses, fees, and remuneration. Costs in any matter are payable from the date of the order of the Court unless the parties otherwise agree. The costs of a third-party funding contract are not recoverable as part of the costs of, or costs..

J. [M.R. SHAH]

J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 21, 2022.