Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
R.K. Malik & Another
Versus
Kiran Pal & Others
CIVIL APPEAL No.3608 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17525 of 2006) With CIVIL APPEAL No. 3609 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1686 of 2007) And CIVIL APPEAL No. 3607 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13397 of 2007)
Decided On : 15-05-2009
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Death of children, mostly students, not earning – Compensation to parents, grandparents etc. – Loss of dependency – Nature of – Awarded for prospective or future loss. (Para 15)
(1996) 3 SCC 179; (2005) 8 SCC 473; (2005) 6 SCC 236; (2005) 10 SCC 720; (2002) 6 SCC 281; (1911-13) All England Reporter 160 – Relied upon
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Second Schedule – Deceased school children – No earnings – Second schedule applicable – Notional income of 15000 per annum and multiplier of 15 applicable (Para 16)
(2003) 3 SCC 148; (2002) 6 SCC 281; (1996) 4 SCC 362 – Relied upon
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Second Schedule – Introduced in 1994 – Accident occurring in 1997 – Plea for revising the notional income giving benefit of time elapsed since 1994 – Date of enactment and date of occurrence being proximity, plea rejected. (Para 18)
(e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Non pecuniary compensation – Difficult to quantify – Action similar to the case of dependents of injured person initiating proceedings – Compensation for "loss of expectation of life" – “Conventional compensation” – Compensation for pain and suffering and towards non-pecuniary damages – Must be just and reasonable. (Para 24, 28, 33)
(1994) 2 SCC 176; (1996) 3 SCC 179; (2001) 8 SCC 197; (2001) 8 SCC 151; (1995) 1 SCC 551; (2003) 7 SCC 484 – Relied upon
(f) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Future prospects of deceased children – Their performance in school, reputation of the school etc. – Ought to be taken into consideration – Rs. 75000 awarded over and above the amount awarded by High Court. (Para 32)
(1965) I All E R 563; (1995) 1 SCC 551; (1999) 6 SCC 667; (2001) 8 SCC 197 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
These appeals relate to motor accident claims.
The appellants herein are claimants whose children were studying in school. On 18.11.1997 when these children were proceeding to the school in a bus bearing No. DL IP-1644, the bus after overrunning the road and breaking the railing got drowned in Yamuna river at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge. Consequent to the accident, 29 children died.
The bus was being driven by Mr. Karan Pal (respondent No.1) and was owned by Mr. Hari Kishan (respondent No.2) and was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 3).
The Tribunal by its common award awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 55,000/-to the dependents of children between age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs. 1, 65,000/-between 15 to 18 years. Three of the children namely Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years. In the case of Kailash Rathi, compensation of Rs. 1, 05,000/- was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma, compensation of Rs. 1, 30,000/- and Rs. 1, 31,000/-respectively was awarded. Additional Rs. 1000/- was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The figures mentioned above include Rs. 5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. It awarded interest @ 6% for four years.
Finding of the Court:
Non-pecuniary compensation of Rs.75000 and interest @6% are just and proper.
Result:
Appeals disposed of.
Judgment :
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1.1. Leave granted.
.2. Challenge in these appeals is made to the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 rendered by a Single Judge of Delhi High Court in a bunch of motor accident claims petitions bearing MACT Nos. 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201202, 203-204, 207-208, 209-210, 213, 214, 215, 217, 221, 222, 228-229, 231-232, 233-
.234 and 742-743 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the High Court was pleased to dispose of the claim petitions of the appellants herein.
2.3. In order to decide these appeals, it would be necessary to state few basic facts. The appellants herein are claimants whose children were studying in school. On 18.11.1997 when these children were proceeding to the school in a bus bearing No. DL IP-1644, the bus after overrunning the road and breaking the railing got drowned in Yamuna river at Wazirabad Yamuna Bridge. Consequent to the accident, 29 children died.
3.4. The bus was being driven by Mr. Karan Pal (respondent No.1 herein) and was owned by Mr. Hari Kishan (respondent No.2) and was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 3). It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed. It was further alleged that the bus driver lost control of the bus and after breaking the railing of the bridge on left side, the same fell into the river Yamuna.
4.5. The appellants filed claim petitions individually on account of fault liability and sought for payment of compensation under Section 163-A read with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short `the Act). It was pleaded that the deceased-children would have earned good amount per month in future and would have provided financial assistance and pecuniary help to their parents-appellants. The claim petitions of the appellants were heard together by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short `the Tribunal).
.6. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, several witnesses were examined in support of the respective claims. The appellants also examined themselves as witnesses. The Tribunal by award dated 06.12.2004 held that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver (respondent No. 1) and, therefore, the said respondent along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal by its common award awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 55,000/-to the dependents of children between age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs. 1, 65,000/-between 15 to 18 years. Three of the children namely Kailash Rathi, Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma were less than 10 years. In the case of Kailash Rathi, compensation of Rs. 1, 05,000/- was awarded and in the cases of Neena Jain and Jatish Sharma,
.compensation of Rs. 1, 30,000/- and Rs. 1, 31,000/-respectively was awarded. Additional Rs. 1000/- was awarded in the case of Jatish Sharma, as in some other cases, for loss of books. The figures mentioned above include Rs. 5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. It awarded interest @ 6% for four years. As per the Second Schedule of the Act, the balance amount was awarded for loss of dependency that was calculated on notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Rs. 5,000/- was deducted towards personal living expenses. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 for children below 15 years and multiplier of 16 for children between 16 and 18 years respectively.
5.7. Against the said order of the Tribunal, appeals were filed before the High Court by the appellants who were heard together by the High Court. It was submitted before the High Court that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable and the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest from the date of petition till realization.
6.8. The High Court by its common order held that the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation in all the cases by Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 1000/-(if not already awarded by the Tribunal) and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
