The court established that compensation for the death of a minor must reflect inflation-adjusted values, and negligence should be accurately assessed based on factual evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

This appeal is by the appellants/claimants questioning quantum as well as negligence of 25% fastened on the rider of the bike on which minor was proceeding as a pillion rider.

2. The claimants have filed a claim petition for having lost a minor son aged about 4 years in a road traffic accident dated 16.12.2016. The Tribunal having answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, has awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by fixing liability at 25% on the rider of the bike.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on a reported judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshminarayanappa @ Moogappa and others Vs. M/s Royal Sundaram Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd., MFA No.11440/2011 C/w MFA No.206/2018 D.D.12.09.2024

4. The insurance company has tried to counter the reported judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench by citing a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204.

5. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the Apex Court while examining compensation payable in case of a death of a minor child aged 12 years. The Apex Court citing the law laid down in the case of Kurvan Ansari vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 as well as Kishan Gopal vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244, proceeded to assess the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.30,000/- per annum so as to determine the compensation. With great respect, this Court is of the view that the Apex Court bearing in mind the death of a minor boy aged 12 years, has adopted a fictional method in assessing the income notionally citing two previous judgments of the Apex Court.

6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the reported judgment has not adverted to one age group of minors. The learned Single Judge has taken pain in adverting to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in case of minor deaths under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Single Judge has taken cognizance right from the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Mehboobkhan vs. Babarkhan, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom.1158 relating to obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her aged and infirm parents to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197.

7. The learned Single Judge has also exhaustively dealt with the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and inaction on the part of Central Government in not implementing the directives issued by the Apex Court in the case of Puttamma vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45 relating to Second Schedule, which was enacted under Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. Learned Single Judge has further adverted to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of in Puttamma’s case (supra). The learned Single Judge in the above land mark judgment recording inflation for every year from 1994 has by way of legal fiction prepared exhaustive tables recording inflation in percentage right from 1994 to 2024.

8. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, as exhaustively discussed, reflects a comprehensive and practical approach to addressing the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Single Judge has meticulously analyzed the inaction on the part of the Central Government in implementing the directives issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttamma vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy (supra), which pertain to the Second Schedule enacted under Act 54 of 1994, effective from 14.11.1994. Furthermore, the Single Judge has critically examined the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case and has extended their applicability to the present scenario by formulating a detailed methodology to determine compensation in cases involving the death of minors in road traffic accidents.

9. This landmark judgment by the Single Judge of this court is a pioneering decision as i