CHANDERI DEVI AND ANR.

VS JASPAL SINGH AND

ORS.
(2015) 11 SCC 703
PRINCIPLE
 To ascertained annual income of the
deceased cannot be assessed on the based
document but it should be on just and
reasonable.
FACTS
 Surinder Singh is an Indian cook in Moghul Tandoor
Restaurant in Germany.
 On 29/09/2006 Surinder Singh and 2 more people

were travelling in a car which was hit by another car

near Piao Maniyari on GT Road Sonepat.
FACTS
 Surinder singh was succumbed to his injuries on
04/10/2006.
 The appellant (wife and son of the deceased) filed a

claim petition before the Tribunal Sonepat claiming

Rs. 1,00,000/ month and
 Rs 1,00,000 was spent on deceased treatment,

transportation and last rites from respondent

Insurance Company.
FACTS
 Tribunal after considering the facts, circumstance and
evidence- passed award of Rs 2,00,000 p.a with an
interest @ 7.5% p.a u/s 166,168,171 & 173 of MV Act.
 Aggrieved by inadequate compensation appellant filed

before HC of P&H at Chandighar.

 The HC enhance the compensation amount to Rs

17,10,000. Aggrieved by the same the appellant filed

appeal in Supreme Court.
Provision
Sec 166 (c) application for compensation-legal
representative of the deceased.
Sec 168 award of the claim tribunal- award
passed by the tribunal shall be paid by the
insurer/owner/driver of vehicle-30days.
Sec 171 award of interest where any claim is
allowed-compensation shall be paid on
simple interest
Sec 173 Appeal- from claim tribunal to High
Court-90 days
DEFENDANT PLEAD
 Whether the appellant are entitled for further
enhancement of compensation?
Appellant:-
 The Tribunal and High court- have not taken

into consideration the deceased age (32

years)
 He was employed as an Indian cook in

Moghul Tandoor Restaurant, Germany-

earning about 1145 Euros per month.
 High Court has not appreciated the facts and

evidence and not assigning valid reasons

while fixing the compensation.
Appellant
 Court has not awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
 Court has not determined the income of deceased to

calculate loss of dependency based on the document

produce.
 Further court have not considered the future

prospects of the deceased to add –actual income-

calculated loss of dependency.
Respondent
 The Respondent i.e Insurance Company
contended that
(i) the amount awarded by the High Court to
the appellant as compensation is just and
reasonable.
(ii) no enhancement of compensation if
required.
 Further contended that the compensation

must be just and reasonable, it should

neither be bonanza- source of profit.
INTERPRETATION
 The court held that:-
 The annual income of deceased- cannot be assessed on

the given document.

 The High Court was just and reasonable while

considering the of the deceased at the time of his death

as Rs 8333/month- based on 2006.
 SC ascertain the income of deceased at the time of his

death @ Rs15,000/month– loss of dependency(higher

side)
 Further added 50% of the actual salary- future

prospects- loss of dependency is Rs 22,500/ month.

INTERPRETATION
 i.e Rs 2,70,000 p.a- deducting 10% income
tax- Rs 2,43,000 p.a
 Further deducting 1/3rd of personal

expenses- therefore the loss of dependency

comes to Rs 25,92,000
 [(Rs 2,43,000 – 1/3 of Rs 2,43,000) ×16]
Further, court awarded:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs 25,92,000

2. Loss of estate Rs 1,00,000

3. Loss of consortium Rs 1,00,000

4. Loss of love and affection Rs 1,00,000

5. Funeral expenses Rs 25,000

Total Rs 29,17,000
JUDGMENT
 Held:-
 The appeal was allowed and award an amount of
Rs 29,17,000 with interest @ 9% p.a – date of filing
till the date of payment.
 The Respondent Insurance company- to deposit
the sum payable to minor in any nationalised
bank- withdrawn after attaining majority- for
education, development and welfare-filing
application before MACT, Sonepat.