Motor Accident Compensation| Monthly Income Can Be Based On Tax Returns, Provided The Tax Payment Details Are Appropriately Brought Into Evidence: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the monthly income for calculating motor accident compensation can be based on tax returns, provided the tax payment details are appropriately brought into evidence.
The Court dismissed the Appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurance Company) challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the Madras High Court in a motor vehicle accident case involving the death of three out of four family members. The Bench stated that the enhancement of compensation by the High Court for the Claimant (Legal Heir), who lost her parents and younger brother in the accident, was not excessive.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The appellant was aged only 14 years when she lost her parents as also her younger brother. True that she got paternal grandfather. But then, the plight and fate on account of such solitude was considered by the Tribunal and the High Court. She will have to experience the same for long.”
Advocate Surat Singh represented the Appellant, while Advocate Manindra Dubey appeared for the Respondents.
The Claimant filed three claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) under the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the deaths of her father, mother, and brother.
The enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court was challenged by the Insurance Company before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to award enhanced compensation to a claimant as ahe lost her family in a motor vehicle accident, observing that the High Court took note of the “plight” and “solitude” of a 14-year-old girl who lost her parents and younger brother.
The Bench explained that while calculating compensation, it must be borne in mind that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates the grant of a just compensation. “In a family of 4 members, viz., the parents and two children including the appellant, three of them died, leaving the appellant. After bestowing our anxious consideration on all aspects, we are of the considered view that after taking into account all parameters, just compensation was assessed and granted by the High Court as per the impugned common judgment by way of enhancement, which cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant,” it held.
"Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law," the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “In such circumstances, in the name of correcting the law, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with justice done to the appellant by the High Court by granting enhanced compensation. In other words, we do not think that after re-working out, the compensation payable to the appellant should be brought down, to some extent, especially because the difference between what was already granted and to be granted, if reworked, cannot be said to be alarmingly excessive.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 15)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Surat Singh, Rajesh Palo, Rakesh Kumar Palo and B. Jagannath Rao; AOR Sudhansu Palo
Respondents: Advocates Manindra Dubey; AOR K. L. Janjani and Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
