Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto

MEENA DEVI …APPELLANT Versus

NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND MAHTO & ORS. …RESPONDENT(s)

JUDGMENT

J.K. MAHESHWARI,J.

Leave granted.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present case are

that the child, namely; Bankee Bihari, aged about 12 years

on the date of accident i.e. 29.7.2003, while playing in front

of his house, was dashed by the Commander Jeep bearing

registration No. JH-11A 6894 and died on the way, while

being taken to a hospital in Dhanbad. A Claim Petition

under Sections 140, 166 read with Section 171 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V. Act”) seeking

compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN filed by the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased Date: 2022.10.13 14:37:18 IST Reason:

child.

1

3. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih (for short,

“M.A.C.T.”) granted compensation to the tune of Rs.

1,50,000/- in lump sum. On assailing the inadequacy of

such an award by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 2013,

the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi enhanced the

amount of compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- equivalent to the

value of the claim made in the Claim Petition.

4. The adequacy of grant of such compensation has

been questioned by filing the present appeal, inter alia,

contending that the High Court erred in assessing the

amount in the heads of “pecuniary” and “non-pecuniary”

loss. MACT and the High Court have not granted any

amount under the head “loss of prospective happiness” and

other conventional heads and the amount as granted under

the head of loss of dependency is inadequate. Therefore, the

compensation may be enhanced. Placing reliance on the

judgment of this Court in R.K. Malik and another vs.

Kiran Pal and others (2009)14 SCC 1, it is urged that the

High Court committed error in assessing the less quantum

for notional income of the deceased without adding ‘future

prospect’ while computing the compensation. Reliance has

2 further been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case

of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others (2014)

1 SCC 244 wherein the compensation has been calculated

treating Rs. 30,000/- as notional income including future

prospects in place of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd

Schedule of the M.V. Act and applying the multiplier as

specified in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Others vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC.

121. It is further contended that in case of death, just and

reasonable amount of compensation ought to be awarded

along with interest as permissible. It is urged that the

valuation of the claim is immaterial to grant just and

reasonable compensation, however the High Court

committed error restricting the compensation equal to

valuation of Claim Petition.

5. Mr. Anup Kumar and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,

Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. No one appeared on behalf of

respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though notice was served on them.

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 urged that the compensation as

3 awarded by the MACT and High Court is just and proper,

however supporting the findings, as recorded by the two

Courts, contended that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the findings, the liability of the Insurance

Company is not in dispute and only the quantum is

questioned by the claimant. Therefore, on the point of

liability of respondent No. 4-Insurance Company, we approve

the finding of the High Court.

8. Reverting to computation of compensation in the

facts of this case, a child died in a road accident at the age

of 12 years while playing in front of his house. He was

studying in 5th class in Nehru Academy, Giridih Road,

Jamtara, Dumri, however it is required to be seen how the

computation of compensation may be made. As per the

ocular statement given by her mother, it is clear that the

deceased child was a brilliant student of Class 5 and if he

had not met with the accident, he would have definitely

become an officer in future. In the said factual matrix, the

compensation is required to be determined.

4

9. In the judgment of R.K. Malik (supra), 29 children

going in a school bus died by drowning in Yamuna River

while the offending vehicle fell down, breaking the railings of

the bridge in a road accident, took place in November, 1997.

In the said case this Court held that the principle for

determination of the compensation may be observed

applying the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and the appropriate

multiplier considering the age of parents. It has also been

said that the claim with regard to the future prospects

should have been addressed by the Courts based on the

performance and the reputation of the school. In the said

case, the principles laid down by this Court in the case of

Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others

(2001)8 SCC 197 and M.S. Grewal & another vs. Deep

Chand Sood & others (2001)8 SCC 151 have been followed

and enhancement was made. In the case of Lata Wadhwa

(supra), it was clarified that the compensation may be

awarded dividing the children in the age groups of 5 to 10

and 10 to 15 years. It is held that such grant of

compensation will not necessarily bar the parents to claim

prospective loss and it will be valid. This Court also relied

5 upon the principles as laid down by the House of Lords in

the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. Vs. Jankins 1913 AC 1,

wherein Lord Atkinson observed as thus:

“…all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact – there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can, I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.”

10. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in

place of issuing any guidelines for determination of

compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open

to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the case of M.S. Grewal (supra), 14 school students died

due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the

students were belonging to upper middle class background,

however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.

6 5,00,000/-. Thereafter in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra),

a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place

on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd

Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of

Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy

that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994

when the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in IInd

Schedule of the MV Act. However accepting the notional

income as Rs. 30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i.e.

36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the

multiplier of 15 at Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total

sum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali

& another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022)

1 SCC 317, wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a

road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this Court taking

notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of

15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and

adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs.

4,70,000/-.

7

12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that

in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs.

15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has

been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and

value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd

Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional

income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan

Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra)

in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.

13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments,

looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12

years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal

(supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case.

As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it

is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying

in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning

Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the

multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla

Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs.

4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional

heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.

8 5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the

High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of

the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of

compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the

computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the

total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the

amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-,

the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the

decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa

vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was

observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that

the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding

the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award

‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying

upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less

valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be

impediment to award just compensation exceeding the

claimed amount.

9

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of

compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by

Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of

compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim

Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the

respondent No. 4 – United India Insurance Company within

a period of four weeks from today.

16. The parties to bear their own costs.

………….……………….J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

……...……………………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 13, 2022.

10