SC Sets Aside HC’s Reduction Of MACT Compensation; Rejects Claim That Children Did Not Suffer Any Pecuniary Loss By Gaining Partnership In Deceased Parent’s Firm
The Supreme Court restored the compensation awarded by the MACT.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order, which had drastically reduced the compensation awarded by the MACT, rejecting the claim that the children did not suffer any pecuniary loss as they stepped into their deceased parents’ shoes by becoming partners in their firm.
The Court restored the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Appeal was filed by the children (Appellants) of the Deceased parents challenging the decision of the Madras High Court which reduced the compensation awarded by the MACT.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “It would be of relevance as to whether due to their lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall in the profitability of the firm or the business would ensue. Such factor, while considering a claim pertaining to loss of future income/earnings, would have to be dealt with.”
Senior Advocate Kiran Suri represented the Appellants, while Advocate Abhishek Kumar Gola appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The appellants’ parents were travelling in a Tempo Traveler vehicle (vehicle) which met with an accident resulting in their immediate death. The accident was caused after an uninsured bus allegedly dashed into the vehicle.
The Compensation awarded for the same was challenged before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the Appeal and reduced the compensation.
Arguments by The Appellants
It was submitted that the view of the High Court that the Appellants had stepped into the shoes of the deceased by becoming partners in the firm and that they did not suffer any pecuniary loss in the business was incorrect for the reason that the parents of the Appellants were running the firm. The Appellants were added as partners at the age of about 24, 22, 18 and 18 years respectively, but were not participating in the business.
It was submitted that even though the Tribunal did not appreciate the facts of the case and failed to apply the law, the High Court had caused further damage by drastically reducing the compensation awarded, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the Award rendered by the MACT was “well-considered.”
It held that “merely because the appellants stepped into the shoes of the deceased, by such factum itself, the appellants would not be capable of running the Mill” while relying on Karnataka High Court’s decision in B Parimala v. Riyaz Ahmed (2000).
The Bench remarked that “we are satisfied that between the formula applied by the Tribunal vis-a-vis the approach adopted by the High Court, the view of the Tribunal rendered in the form of the Award satisfies our judicial conscience.”
Consequently, the Court held, “The High Court’s reasoning militates against settled law. For the reasons aforesaid and adopting a holistic view, we find that the Impugned Judgment of the High Court deserves to be interfered with. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Award passed by the Tribunal stands restored.”
Cause Title: S. Vishnu Ganga & Ors. v. M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 123)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Kiran Suri; AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar, Advocate Deva Vrat Anand
Respondents: Advocate Abhishek Kumar Gola, Anshul Mehral, Ramneek Singh, Arun Kumar Nagar, Sidharth Khatana, Rahul Kasana, Roop Chaudhary, P Gandepan and Ashwini Kumar; AOR Sudhir Naagar and G. Indira
