Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 1131
2012(1) CCR 435 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Nana Devi (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Gurumel Singh & Ors. (Rafiq, J.)
HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Nana Devi (Smt.) & Ors.
Versus
Gurumel Singh & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 870/2001, 1606/2004, 243/2006, 934/2009, 4401/2009, 2652/2006, 766/2007, 815/2011, 79/2004, 1443/2004, 2876/2005, 2920/2005, 3463/2005, 192/2008, 1880/2008, 841/2009, 1157/2009, 1261/2009, 2302/2009, 4254/2009, 688/2010, 1990/2010, decided on 02.11.2011
Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Advocate with Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Ashok Mehta, Sr.Advocate with, Rajpal Choudhary, Vinay Mathur, Ali Mohd.Khan, Kapil Mathur, Sunil Jain, Girish Khandelwal, Vivek Goyal, Virendra Agrawal, Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Manu Bhargava, Sandeep Mathur, Ms. Suman Sharma, Ramdayal Meena, Reashm Bhargava, A.K. Sharma, Pankaj Gupta, L.L. Gupta, J.P. Gupta, Sanjay Singhal, for Appellants;
K.C. Jain, Rajesh Parashar, Tripurari Sharma, Suresh Kumar, Virendra Goyal, V.P. Mathur, Praveen Jain, Tej Prakash Sharma, Ms. Sangeeta Sen, Sukhram Jatav, Ashok Bansal, Inderjeet Singh, Deepak Goyal, Dinesh Kala, Ram Singh Bhati, Sanjay Singhal, Amar Nath Pareek, Virendra Saraswat, Omprakash Gupta, Akash Agrawal, Pritam Bijlani and Kartar Singh, for Respondents
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 168 & 173 — Death of School Children in road accident — Tribunal awarded compensation severally on their age — Appeal for suitable enhancement — Held — Three age group children were in the bus as upto 5 years, 5 to 10 years and 10 to 15 years — Keeping in view the fact that value of rupee has been certainly diminished and gone down due to inflation during all this intervening period — It is deemed appropriate to enhance the compensation in each of these appeals — Compensation for the death of upto 5 years children is enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/-, for the age group of 5 to 10 years is to Rs. 2,00,000/- and for the age group of 10 to 15 years is to Rs. 2,50,000/-. (Paras 18)
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 168 ,oa 173 & lM+d nq?kZVukvksa esa Ldwy ds cPpksa dh e`R;q & vf/kdj.k us muds vk;q ij vyx-vyx izfrdj vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & mi;qDr vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & rhu vk;q oxZ tSls ikap o"kZ rd 5 ls 10 o"kZ rd ,oa 10 ls 15 o"kZ rd ds cPps cl esa Fks & bl rF; dks fopkj esa j[krs gq, fd :i;s dk ewY; bu lHkh e/;orhZ vof/k ds Øe esa eqnzkLQhfr ds dkj.k fuf'pr :i ls de vkSj ?kVrk tk jgk gS & ;g leqfpr ekuk tkrk gS fd bl izR;sd vihy esa izfrdj vfHko`f) dh tk;s & 5 o"kZ rd ds cPps dh e`R;q gsrq 1]50]000@- #i;s rd] 5 ls 10 o"kZ vk;q oxZ gsrq 2]00]000@- #i;s rd vkSj 10 ls 15 o"kZ vk;q oxZ gsrq 2]50]000@- #i;s rd izfrdj vfHko`f) fd;kA ¼in la[;k 18½
vihysa Lohdkj dhA
2. For the facility of reference, these appeals are divided in following three age groups:-
(i) 1st batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.870/01, 1606/04, 243/06, 934/09 & 4401/09) pertains to those claim cases, wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was upto 5 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.90,500/-, respectively.
(ii) 2nd batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.2652/06, 766/07, 815/11 & 688/10) pertains to those claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 5 years but not more than 10 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/-, respectively.
(iii) 3rd batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.79/04, 1443/04, 2876/05, 2920/05, 3463/05, 192/08, 1880/08, 841/09, 1157/09, 1261/09, 2302/09, 4254/09, 688/10 & 1990/10), pertains to those death claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.54,000/-, Rs.1,35,000/-, Rs.1,66,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.2,27,300/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,72,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.2,15,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the "Act of 1988"), structured formula has to be applied in the case of those persons, who die due to accidental death involving motor vehicles and whose income cannot be proved, accepting notional income of Rs.15,000/- and compensation has to be awarded to the claimants in such cases uniformally to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. It was argued that in view of above, no discrimination can be made in payment of compensation to the claimants for the death of children aged upto 15 years, who died accidental death. Learned counsel in support of their argument placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal & Anr. vs. Deep Chand Sood & Ors. : (2001) 8 SCC 151 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants, whose children died due to drowning in the river on account of the negligence of school teachers when they had gone for a school picnic. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in S.C. Mittal & Ors. vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. : RLR 2005(2) 525 wherein, for the accidental death of 4 years old child, an amount of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, was enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/-. Special appeal was filed thereagainst being DBSAW No.55/2001, which was decided on 8.7.2005. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the special appeal filed by the RSRTC, relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Manju Devi & Anr. vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr. : 2005(1) TAC 609, in which the compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a child aged 14 years, Supreme Court accepting the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per month, adopted multiplier of 15 and enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.2,25,000/-, held that even though age of the child at the relevant time was 4 years but the law as per the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act does not make any distinction between the minimum and maximum age mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that this Court in Smt.Malti & 52 Others vs. M.K. Vasu and 52 Others : 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 589, which j
