IMPORTANT POINT
Under MV Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding amount so claimed – Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. 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 filed by the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased child.

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 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 and 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 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 requi