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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 807

High Court Of Calcutta
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, JJ.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MITHU ROY - Respondent
F. M. A. 943 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/20/2006

Advocates Appeared:
AMIT RANJAN ROY, KAMAL KRISHNA DAS

Determination of compensation for a minor victim based on notional income and multiplier as provided in the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Determination of compensation for a minor victim - Notional income and multiplier applied - Appeal against tribunal award - Modification of award and direction for payment of balance sum and interest

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, which awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant for the death of her six-year-old son.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tribunal had applied the wrong tests in computing compensation and modified the award to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the balance sum with interest, and the office was directed to release payment of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of the claimants.

Issues: Determination of compensation for a minor victim, application of notional income and multiplier, modification of tribunal award, direction for payment of balance sum and interest

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that in the case of a minor victim with no possibility of earning, compensation should be determined based on notional income and a multiplier as provided in the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court found that the tribunal had applied the wrong tests in computing compensation and modified the award accordingly.

Final Decision: The award was modified to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the balance sum with interest. The office was directed to release payment of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of the claimants. The appeal was disposed off with no order as to costs.

S. K. MUKHERJEE AND P. S. BANERJEE, JJ.

( 1 ) SINCE the owner of the offending vehicle, that is the respondent No. 3, did not contest the case in the Court below, service of notice of the appeal on the respondent No. 3 is dispensed with.

( 2 ) SINCE Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appears for the claimant/ respondent Nos. l and 2, the appeal is treated as ready for hearing by appearance.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH this is an application for stay, by consent of the parties, we take up the appeal for final hearing.

( 4 ) THIS is an appeal against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal awarding Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant on account of death of her son. Admittedly, the victim was aged about six years at the time of accident.

( 5 ) IT is settled law that in case of a victim, who is a minor having no possibility of earning at the material point of time, compensation should be determined on the footing of non-earning person having the notional income as provided in the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by following the formula as indicated in the said Schedule. In determining such compensation the multipe of 15 should be applied.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned advocate for the appellant and mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. l and 2, we are satisfied that the learned member of the Tribunal below applied wrong tests in computing compensation.

( 7 ) TAKING the notional income of the victim as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, as the victim was a child aged about six years, and applying the multiplier of 15, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.

( 8 ) THEREFORE, the award impugned is modified. The claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

( 9 ) MR. Kamal Krishna Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant invites our attention to the fact that he has already put in Rs. 25,000/-, as required under sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 at the time of filing of the appeal.

( 10 ) THE Insurance Company is directed to put in the balance sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum from the date of filing of the application till the actual deposit is made in the Tribunal below by account payee cheque in the name of the claimants, within six weeks from this date. The Insurance Company shall also pay interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on Rs. 25,000/- from the date of filing of the application for compensation till the date of deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in this Court.

( 11 ) THE office is directed to release payment of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimants.

( 12 ) WITH the aforesaid directions the appeal is disposed off.

( 13 ) NO separate order is required to be passed in connection with the application for stay and as such, the application is disposed off. We make no order as to costs.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top