Case title: Kubra Bibi v. Oriental Insurance
Summary
The High Court has reinstated the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) award, which was initially granted by the MACT. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach to evaluating evidence, stating that it was not sensitive to the character of the list before it. The court emphasized the importance of evaluating notional income of individuals employed in the unorganized sector, particularly when claimants are dependents of the deceased. The Supreme Court vacated the High Court’s judgment and reinstated the award, which was originally granted by the MACT in 2007. The court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount within four weeks of receiving the judgment.
About the case
Originally granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), the award has been reinstated by the Supreme Court. The MACT’s verdict was reinstated by the apex court, which expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s manner of evaluating the evidence.
The Court made an observation. “It is regrettable that the High Court, in evaluating the evidence present on record, has attempted to obtain rigorous evidence regarding the deceased’s income in the present case.” In the current situation, where compensation is sought and there is no definitive proof of income, the social status of the deceased must be considered, particularly in cases where they are employed in the unorganized sector. The notional income must also be taken into account. In particular, when the MACT had relied on the evidence that was on record and subsequently reached its conclusion, the High Court’s re-appreciation of evidence is not sensitive to the character of the list before it.
The Supreme Court bench, which consisted of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment that had reduced the compensation sum offered to claimants in a motor accident case from Rs 11,87,000 to Rs 4,75,000.
The case involved the premature death of an individual who was the solitary source of income for his family. Due to the deceased’s employment status in the unorganized sector, the claimants were unable to obtain comprehensive documentation, which raised concerns regarding the High Court’s approach to evaluating the evidence regarding the deceased’s income.
In spite of this obstacle, the MACT had made an effort to evaluate the deceased’s income and determined that he was employed as a competent mechanic at a two-wheeler repair shop.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of evaluating the notional income of individuals employed in the unorganized sector in accordance with their social status when addressing cases. The Court emphasized that the notional income should be considered, particularly when the claimants are dependents of the deceased, even in the absence of concrete substantiation of income.
The High Court’s rigorous approach to obtaining comprehensive evidence of the deceased’s income and ownership of the repair business where he had worked was criticized by the Supreme Court.
In cases involving the unorganized sector, the Court underscored the necessity of sensitivity and the consideration of the deceased’s social circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment rendered by the High Court on March 5, 2019, and reinstated the Award that was originally granted by the MACT on March 13, 2007. The Court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount within four weeks of receiving the judgment.
