SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 687

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHYAM KISHORE MURMU & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6902 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5311 OF 2019)
DECIDED ON : 16-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):S.N. Bhat, Parvati Bhat, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Yashwant Singh Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, V.S. Chopra, Manjeet Chawla, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Fatal accident – It is appropriate to take notional income of child victim at Rs.25,000/- per annum, taking into account inflation, devaluation of rupee and cost of living.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A – Fatal accident – Deceased boy aged 7 years – Tribunal, considering notional income of deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, by applying multiplier ‘15’, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with 6% interest – Since driver of offending motorcycle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, Tribunal directed Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimants and recover the same from its owner – High Court has dismissed appeal preferred by Insurance Company and partly allowed appeal preferred by claimants by awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses – As claim was made under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, since deceased child was not an earning member, Tribunal has considered notional income as per Schedule–II for the purpose of fixing compensation – It is a fit case to increase notional income by taking into account inflation, devaluation of rupee and cost of living – It is appropriate to take notional income of deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum – Appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- towards total compensation with 6% interest – Enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between appellants as ordered by Tribunal. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 15, 16 and 17)

Facts of the case:

Instant Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellants - claimants in M.A. No.66 of 2011, preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 03.08.2018.

Findings of Court:

In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed partly with directions.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellants claimants in M.A. No.66 of 2011, preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018.

3. Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this Appeal are that on 06.09.2004, while the son of the appellants -claimants viz., Ibran Ali, a boy aged about 7 (seven) years studying in Class-II, was standing by the side of the road in front of his maternal grandparents’ house, a motorcycle has dashed him causing grievous injuries resulting in his death. The said vehicle was driven by one Mr.Sunil Gurum and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2.

4. On account of the said accident which resulted the death of the child of the claimants, they filed a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, it was the case of the claimants that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle; the deceased boy was aged about 7 years at the time of accident and he was studying in Class-II. The Tribunal by appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle’s driver viz., Sunil Gurum. The Tribunal, considering notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-per annum, by applying multiplier ‘15’, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-with interest @6% per annum from the date of judgment. Since the driver of the offending motorcycle Mr.Sunil Gurum was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Tribunal directed respondent No.2 -Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from its owner.

5. Pleading contributory negligence, the insurance company had preferred M.A. No.115 of 2011, for enhancement of compensation, the claimants have preferred M.A. No.66 of 2011, before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

6. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the claimants by awarding a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, it is held that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing Claim Petition.

7. We have heard Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri V.S. Chopra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

8. Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court is on lower side and is not just and fair. The learned counsel has contended that the compensation was awarded by assuming income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/-per annum as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is applicable to the claims made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that the notional income of Rs.15,000/-was fixed as early as in the year 1994 and somehow, the same is continued in the statute without any amendment in spite of repeated directions by this Court. It is submitted that in view of the provision under Section 163-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though it was obligatory on the part of the Government to amend Schedule-II, same as fixed in the year 1994, continued since then. Thus, it is submitted that the notional income as fixed, is to be considered by taking into account increase in the cost of living. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Anr., (2013) 15 SCC 45, R.K. Malik & Anr. v. Kira

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top