Point of Law: Section 163A of "MV Act" was introduced with effect entered opinion that Rs.24,000/- per annum should be adopted as notional income even in case of death of children, till end of financial year.

JUDGMENT :

The quantum and the manner of award of compensation in the unfortunate cases of death of children, consequent to accidents, has long gripped the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of this Court.

2. In Puttamma & Ors. v. K.L.Narayana Reddy & another [(2013) 15 SCC 45], surveying the various precedents that held the field until then, as also to certain amendments to Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Motor Vehicles Act’ for short) -which were proposed at that time -the Hon’ble Supreme Court rued that the Central Government had failed in its imperative duty to amend the afore Schedule, adverting to Section 163A(3) of the MV Act; and thus issued directions to the said Government to cause appropriate amendments, keeping in mind the present cost of living. It then declared that, until such time as necessary amendments are made, the compensation in the case of death of a child below the age of five years be taken to be a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; while in the case of a child of more than five years, as Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. Prior to the afore judgment, in R.K.Malik & another v. Kiran Pal & Ors [(2009) 14 SCC 1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had recommended that the notional income fixed under Section 163A of the MV Act, which was Rs.15,000/-per annum, be enhanced and increased, since it continued to exist without any amendments since 14.11.1994.

4. Imbibing the spirit of R.K.Malik (supra), in Kishan Gopal & another v. Lala & Ors. [(2014) 1 SCC 244], in the case of a 10 year old child killed in an accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income at Rs.30,000/-per annum.

5. Unfortunately, the amendments as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttamma (supra) never came through because, even though the second schedule to the “MV Act” was subsequently amended, same was later withdrawn. Hence, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [2021 (6) KLT OnLine 1005], dealt with the case of death of a seven year old child in an accident, which happened in the year 2004, declared that fixing of notional income at Rs.1,50,000/-per annum for non earning members is not just and reasonable; and therefore, that, it should be enhanced prudently, adverting to the inflation, devaluation of the Rupee and cost of living. Pertinently, the Hon’ble Court, in the said case, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-per annum, and granted a total compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-, as recorded therein.

6. In the meanwhile, a learned Judge of this Court, in National Insurance Company Ltd. and other v. Assainar [2019 (4) KLT 39], took note of the afore judgments, along with others, and considering the fact that Section 163A of the “MV Act” was introduced with effect from 14.11.1994, entered the opinion that Rs.24,000/-per annum should be adopted as the notional income even in the case of death of children, till the end of the financial year 1995-96.

7. Pertinently, however, Smt.Deepa George – learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, submitted that if this Court is to follow Assainar (supra) in the case of the claimants in this case, the compensation eligible to the claimants would only be Rs.4,56,000/-; while if the ratio in Kurvan Ansari (supra) is adopted, it would rise marginally higher. She explained that this is because, in Assainar (supra), this Court has declared that the compensation eligible in the case of a child below the age of five years should be reckoned to be a minimum of Rs.2,40,000/-per annum till 1994-1995, to be incrementally increased by Rs.12,000/-every year. She thus argued that a safer standard would be to follow Kurvan Ansari (supra), which the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered recently as in the year 2021.

8. The afore rival and dialectical positions being so recorded, this Court is now called upon to consider what should be the notional income of a nine month old child, who was unfortunately lost to his parents in the accident i