MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTCversusSUGUNA AND ORS.

                     [2009] 1 S.C.R. 549


              MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC                          A
                              v.
                    SUGUNA AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2009)

                    JANUARY 23, 2009
                                                                !3
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                    GANGULY, JJ.]

    . Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s.166- Death of 24 year old
person in motor accident - Claim for compensation - Claim C
that deceased was getting salary of Rs.2,5001- p.m. - No
evidence to substantiate the claim - MACT fixed the notional
income of deceased at Rs.1,5001- p.m. and awarded Rs.1.83
lacs as compensation - On appeal, High Court fixed the
income of deceased at Rs.2,5001- per month and awarded D
compensation of Rs.4.05 lacs - Held: High Court did not
indicate any reason to fix the income at Rs.2,5001- p.m.
though it deducted one-third for personal expenses - In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, amount of
compensation fixed at Rs. 3 lacs to be paid with interest at the E
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

     Pursuant to death of a 24 year old person in a motor
accident, his dependants filed claim petition under s.166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident took place        F
in 1998. The appellant insurance company denied its
liability on the ground that the accident occurred because
of negligence on part of the deceased. The Claims
Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.1,5001- per month and on that basis awarded a sum
of Rs.1,83,500/- as compensation alongwith 6% interest          G
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition. Questioning
the quantum of compensation, respondents filed appeal
before the High Court. The High Court fixed the income
of deceased at Rs.2,5001- per month and awarded
   ·                          ~9                                H
    550         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009) 1 S.C.R.


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

        In appeal to this Court, the order passed by the High
    Court was challenged on the ground that it was
    practically non-reasoned.
8
          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: In the normal course in a case where an
  appeal has been disposed of by a practically non-
e reasoned order, the matter is remitted for fresh
  consideration. But on facts, considering the passage of
  time and the limited nature of the controversy, this Court
  found it expedient to go through the records. Though it
  was claimed that the deceased was getting salary of
0 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
E Court did not indicate any reason to fix the income at
  Rs.2,500/- p.m. though it deducted one-third for personal
  expenses. 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
F application. [Paras 4 and 5) (552-A-E]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 395
    of 2009.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2005 of the High
G Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1297 of 2003.

         R. Nedumaran, P. Somasundaram and T. Harish Kumar for
    the Appellant.
          Girish Anantmurthy, Vaijayanti Girish and P.P. Singh for the
H
       •    MANAGING DIRECTOR, TNSTC v. SUGUNA AND ORS. 551

           Respondents.                                                           A

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.

                2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a           B
           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
                                                                                  c
           8.15 p.m. one Jayasheela (hereina.fter referred to as the
           'deceased') whq 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
                                                                                  D
           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 Additiona1
           Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,         E
           Mysore (in short the 'MACT') awarded. a sum of Rs.1,83,500/-
           as compensation alongwith 6% interest from the date offiling
  .....    the Claim Petition .

               Questioning quantum of the compensation, respondents               F
           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.

               3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted
           that no basis has been indicated for awarding the                      G
 .......   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          H
    552         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 1 S.C.R.                   <




A 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
B 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
c 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
D
  personal expenses.                                                        ... .
                                                                                ~



        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
E 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.
                                                                      .   ..,
    B.B.B.                                  Appeal partly allowed.
F